A Closer Look at 4th Edition Multi-Classing
I’ve heard over and over again, from various people, that they feel multi-classing in 4th Edition just isn’t worth it. I even got to the point of asking several of the Wizards staffers if their current games (each staffer seems to be playing in several games of 4e) had any higher level multi-classed characters that they could tell us about. I didn’t really get solid answers; it seems most of their in-house games are understandably still in the heroic tier. What I think a lot of people are missing is the bigger picture: how a character develops over time and how multi-classing plays into that. I believe most of us are simply reacting based on first level characters, and honestly, multi-classing in the very beginning SHOULD suck.
At first level you have to take an Initiate/Student feat which officially makes you a multi-class character, and each one gives you a small portion of the second class’s power. Typically the class’s at-will power is given to multi-classed characters as an encounter ability, because do we honestly want someone who is only a wizard on the side going around and blasting things as much as a full-time wizard? I don’t think so! I think a lot of the disappointment comes from this. At first level you really don’t get a huge feeling that you’re playing a multi-classed character.
The next step for multi-classing is actually swapping out powers from your main class for those of your secondary one as you level, which I don’t think many people have really gotten to use yet. At first glance, this is quite scary because you feel like you’re losing abilities and becoming weaker in your main class, when instead you’re just becoming more diverse. The part where the system really becomes interesting is when you look at how these powers are swapped out. You aren’t just gaining powers from a separate class, you’re actually taking a feat at 4th, 8th, or 10th level that THEN allows you to swap out one of your lower level class powers for an equal level power from your secondary class. This firmly solidifies you in the realm of your primary class. Instead of feeling like you are training in two separate fields, you’re still gaining levels as your primary and simply swapping out powers for some variation in abilities. This brings us to the next part that really scares people, giving up all those precious feats!
Feats are a definite hangup for people in the transition from 3rd Edition to 4th. In the previous edition, feats were a huge way of customizing your character, so much so that they were the only thing that differentiated fighters from other classes (and from each other). Most of the “cool moves” that people wanted to do like spring-attack and whirlwind attack were feats. Mobility and Combat Expertise really allowed the player to change how a character played and acted in combat. Now with 4th Edition, feats have been reduced (in my opinion rightfully so) to the final layer of customization for each character. No single feat is going to make or break any character since each one has a limited but useful effect. But what a lot of people gloss over is how many MORE feats a character gets in 4th Edition. A 10th level character now has 6 feats (7 for humans), a 15th level character has 9, and at 30th level you have a whopping 18 feats! The typical character in 3rd Edition has only 7 feats by 20th level, compared to the 12 that they would have nowadays. That’s almost a 2-to-1 exchange in feats and their abilities have been adjusted accordingly. What this means is that a character giving up 4 feats to multi-class is not giving up as much as people think they are, it is simply a trade of that upper layer of customization via feats for…gasp…customization via multi-classing! A character could take skill focus in thievery to add that little extra flavor, or they can take the Sneak of Shadows feat and automatically gain training in thievery, plus they are granted access at higher levels to rogue abilities and powers.
As I was thinking about all of this, I decided a larger perspective on multi-classing was necessary, so I brainstormed what a higher level multi-class character would be like and what they’d be giving up to do it.
A 10th level character has:
- 2 at-will powers (3 for a human)
- 3 encounter
- 3 daily
- 3 utility powers
- 6 feats
That’s a lot of choices for a single classed character, with a good number of feats on top for that extra layer of unique. Now if they were multi-classed, the character has spent 4 feats on a second class and still has 2 feats to spend on other things. What they get in exchange is 2 primary class encounter powers and 1 secondary encounter power, 2 primary daily powers and 1 secondary daily power, with 2 primary utility powers and 1 secondary utility power. In summary, the character has spent 2/3 of their feats to become 1/3 a secondary class. That sounds like a pretty hefty mix of class to me, but I think there’s always going to be a backlash from some players who really loved being able to be equal parts fighter and equal parts wizard, and equally good at both as any single class character. I think most of us can agree, while that might be fun every once in a while for players (though it’s always fun for the powergamer), it really just is not enjoyable for everyone at the table. Then again, it appears some people don’t play D&D to enjoy it, and rather enjoy torturing themselves. Plus, what often ended up happening with the 3rd Edition rules was a player would create a character that was equal parts two separate classes, and sucked at both!
The next step in multi-classing appears to include Paragon Paths or a lack thereof, because you are allowed to take a path from a class even if you’re only multi-classed into it or to skip taking a paragon path at all in order to continue multi-classing. Some seem entirely restricted, like the Ranger’s paths not allowing multi-classed characters to take them, but I think these oversights will be fixed when the expanded material comes out such as Martial Power in mid-October. None of our gaming groups have really had much of a chance to play in the Paragon tier, or any chance to try out the Epic tier, so those discussions will have to wait until we’re all a little more familiar.
The second part of this article, A Closer Look at Paragon Multi-Classing, is up now!
Loading ...
Not to stir the pot too much, but I have actually had quite a bit of fun with my Ranger multiclassed to Rogue.
I initially took the Sneak of Shadows feat because we were not going to have a character in the party with thievery as a class skill, and I wanted to be able to take out the traps my scouting unearthed. I soon discovered that it worked out very well for combat as well, as I can quite easily lob a thrown dagger with an off-hand after taking Quick Draw at level 2. I don’t think I’ve had an encounter go by yet where I didn’t get an opportunity to add the sneak damage.
I don’t think I’ll be taking any of the power-swap feats, it’s just not really consistant with my character concept, but I’m really looking forward to taking the Master Infiltrator paragon path. I have always been reluctant to multiclass, even in 3.5, but against my expectations I’ve found it quite enjoyable in 4E.
“As far as your issues with cross-classing from Ranger into Rogue, perhaps you could use a light blade with your ranger? Oh, I suppose you want to be able to sneak attack someone with a bastard sword? If so, perhaps munchkin should be a character class then also.
Please don’t talk about elegance in game design, when you seem to have little idea what it really entails.”
Bartoneus, you’re going to need a thicker skin if you really want your blog to be seen in the light that you seem to want it to be seen. If your blog becomes popular, you can count on many folks challenging your posts, and stooping to flaming anyone whose tone you don’t like isn’t going to make you stand out from the pack of bloggers out there. In this case, you did exactly what I said you were doing, and accused a person who didn’t agree with your notions of game design of having “little idea of what it entails”.
I’m not sure what’s so munchking about using a sneak attack once per encounter with a heavy blade when you’re not getting the benefits that a rogue gets (like the brutal scoundrel’s bonus damage). A ranger’s certainly better-suited not using a light blade in such a build, where he’s only getting the sneak attack once per encounter, but doing what you’re best-suited to do doesn’t make one a munchkin.
Felon: Actually I apologize, I was mistaken. If you were trying to min-max you’d just be a Ranger, dual wield rapiers and end up doing 1d8 + str + 3d6 (quarry & sneak attack) once per encounter. Sneak attacking with a Bastard Sword (or other heavy blade) doesn’t really make sense, but I can see it not being too overpowered as most of them only do 1d10 or 2d4 damage which isn’t a whole lot more than the Rapier at 1d8. The problem then becomes that a Rogue should be able to do the same, and that’s a decent amount more damage per hit when done every round. In the end limiting sneak attack to light blades doesn’t really hinder a multi-classed Ranger at all, it’s just a fluff issue of not wanting your character to be using that particular weapon. You can always rationalize that you’re using a longsword-like Rapier.
As far as the rest of what you said, blogging advice is always welcome and we highly appreciate it. By arguing that 4e multi-classing is less elegant and more brutish, I can only assume you’re talking about it in relation to previous editions of D&D, which in my opinion presents a lack in understanding of game design and elegance. That’s my opinion, my point still stands that it’s better to assume someone doesn’t understand what I’m saying then to flat out say that they’re wrong, like you did in your very first comment here.
I agree that “stooping to flaming” is a bad idea, in light of that you should probably go back and revise your first comments here and provide something constructive instead.
Woah, wait, who said this blog wasn’t popular already?
Let’s keep it on topic about multiclassing and leave our numbers to me.
Trolling
Flaming
Baiting
I don’t really see how the methods of multiclassing are that different. The 4e method of multiclassing seems to be more gradual and perhaps a bit too gimped.
The 3e version allows for immediate power gain. Isn’t that one of the reasons why they moved a bunch of feats and such to the second level of classes? So you couldn’t take one level of multiclass to pick up all the feats, skills, and useful abilities in one go. The 4e multiclass system seems to be an extreme version of that.
My main disagreement with the 4e version is that it seems a bit gimped (as I said above) in that when you want to get a multiclass feat, you are one level away from getting it. I’m not sure if this is a numbers thing, but it is frustrating to be stymied by design.
What Felon seems to be referring to is the presence of this idea of only allowing certain combinations. I remember trying to make several multiclass characters and running into this same problem. Their core ability only works with a very limited range of things and there is no way to get around it. This leads to the somewhat justified criticism that things aren’t as customizable as they were in 3.5. The issue seems to lie somewhere between game balance and customizability (freedom?).
joshx0rfz’s last post: YouTube of the Week: Let me tell you about my dire shark game Edition
I’ve enjoyed my level one multi-classed rangers, but it appears the additional hunter’s quarry damage bonus has been errata’d to two-rounds, on one specific target. I haven’t decided on how to handle all the errata changes yet (I don’t have alot of free time to tag all my handbooks) It’s still putting out extra damage and is largely helpful with very limited damage resources.
@Felon
“even a humble 4e feat needs to result in a net gain”
From a roleplaying point of view, that’s not necessarily correct. I know many players (including myself) who have multiclassed or taken a feat purely for ‘flavour.’
Also, whether or not a swapped power is a “gain” or a “push” is also quite subjective. For instance, a Warlord’s attacks target mainly AC. Using a multiclass feat to gain an attack that does the exact same damage you may consider a “push,” but what if it targets Will defense instead? What if you’ve swapped out a single target attack for a close or area blast? What if, like Bartoneus suggested, there’s a synergy with the new muticlass power and a main class ability?
The more I look at 4E, the more I’m coming to believe that it was 99% crunch and 1% fluff. That massive crunch factor satisfied a lot of people, but at the end of the day it doesn’t leave a lot of room for Role Playing.
My kind of math says that Role Playing is 2/3 of RPG.
I agree quite a bit with what Josh and Felon have said – there are quite a few combinations that aren’t possible just because of seemingly stupid oversights (like not being able to take any Ranger Paragon paths due to not having any of the core Ranger skills you get at 1st level).
Also, the angle I was coming from has to do with the whole role/class design of 4e – which is much more like a traditional CRPG, something I do know quite a bit about (unlike D&D in general). When you have class roles and functions so clearly defined and when a good mix of these roles is vital to party survival, I really don’t see the benefit in “gimping” a character just to diversify a bit.
I’d argue that having 5 character who are all highly specialized in their own role (maybe 1 or 2 feats into a multiclass system) is far superior than having a group where 2-3 of the members have chosen to go deep into the multiclassing system. In a game which functions much more like an MMORGP played on a tabletop, having watered down characters who aren’t fulfilling their roles to their greatest potential is only hurting their group.
There have been plenty of articles written on the issues of balancing “hybrids” in CRPGS – and the issues brought up in those articles resembles this debate very much.
And to go back to the Fighter example – the same advantages could be gained by: A) Being a dragonborn or B) Being a half elf or C) Only using 2 feats instead of several.
In its current form, I really don’t see the advantage of going deep into a multiclass system. There are a couple of exceptions such as the TWF Ranger who takes the Pit Fighter paragon path. And then, when you see those numbers crunched, it makes you cry baby jesus and wonder why in the hell can someone NOT backstab with a heavy blade ONCE per encounter?
One thing I feel needs to be stated is how 4th ed. addresses one of the key problems with multiclassing in 3rd ed. I honestly didn’t know anyone who played a 3rd ed character from level 1 to level 20 without multiclassing or taking prestige classes, unless they played a monk (and then it only happened once).
In 3rd edition the base classes simply couldn’t compete with the multi-class options. There was no reason to just play a Fighter. After level 4, and often after level 2 (when you got the 2 bonus feats) it was just as easy to add your next class etc.
Don’t get me wrong, there is a great deal of satisfaction that can be derived from this sort of customization, but somewhere in the mix I feel that class identities became lost in 3rd edition. Many players never got beyond level 4-6 in any class, there simlply wasn’t a reason to, and in the end if you didn’t multi-class you weren’t as powerful as the rest of the group.
For new players this meant that if they just picked a class and played it, after a relatively short time they could no contribute to the group like more experienced players. From a play standpoint I found this hurting my ability to draw new players in.
With 4th edition I have found this worry largely assuaged. Yes there are concerns, and yes the customization levels aren’t the same, but they are simpler and they are less broken. A new player can step in and pick any class and play it to level 30 and not worry that by level 10 they won’t be able to keep up with the power-gamers and have to sit and watch the game go on around them.
I can understand from a RP standpoint that it is much harder to get all the tweaks you want for your character. Knowing WOTC thirst for revenue I am sure they will release tons of new stuff to customize your character to the nth degree, so I’m not worried about that moving forward.
[...] A Closer Look at 4th Edition Multi-Classing – 59 comments [...]
Not to open any new wounds… but I’d like to add my 2 cents to the pot.
I’ve been playing a dragonborn cleric, going for a more “battle cleric, front line troop, my god will listen to me and give me aid to smite you and help my friends” sort of feel. My companions, a two-weapon ranger, and a warlock. By lvl 4, my role no matter how much I pray ( pun intended
) is to walk into the front lines, absorb the hits from the enemies, miss with 90% of my powers, and watch the bodies drop around me from sword pokings, strikes, or the dark magic barely missing me at times.
There’s plenty of role-playing reasons for wanting to get much much better at hitting things with my mace. I mean, the warlock is taunting me by offering to help me slay “my” enemy. The ranger has just resolved to look disgusted at my attempts to finish it off. So what’s a solution? Get training!
In 3e I could stop advancing as the cleric and pick up fighter lvls for the serious bonuses to hit (given time and levels). In 4e… I’m reduced to a single multiclass fighter feat granting +1 att with either one-handed or two-handed weapons. Now in all honesty I’m content to let my clerical abilities stop their advancement as I become a better foot soldier with a god on my side. Note again, this realization is coming from a lvl 4 character.
“I just wanna be able to hit the broad side of an ogre once and set it aflame….. *Tears persue* ” (In reference to Cleric Lvl 1 Daily Prayer)
@Ashabel -
As far as missing with 90% of your prayers goes, this should not be the case.
Let’s say the Ranger has an 18 Str. At level 4, that would give him a +9 bonus to hit with longswords (+3 weapon, +2 half level). Let’s also say this allows him to hit, oh, 70% of the time.
Since the Cleric and Ranger don’t have any difference in “Base Attack Bonus” (1/2 level) any more, it all comes down to weapon and stats.
So, if you’re going for a Battle Cleric, I assume you’re focusing on Strength and melee powers. Let’s say (conservatively, as it would be your primary [or secondary at worst] stat, and you got a bonus to it so it should probably be higher) your Str is 14 (+2) and you’re using a Mace (+2).
This gives you an attack bonus of +6. You will miss 3/20 of the time more than your ranger friend. Since every +1 is a 5% chance to hit, you will miss 15% more often, and using the theoretical numbers above you should hit 55% of the time.
If you’re missing with 90% of your attacks, that’s just bad dice.
If you want to improve your attack percentages, ask your DM to let you respec your stats to a higher Strength. (What is your Strength, by the way?)
While in 4e you can’t pick up a different class to improve your shoddy BAB, there is also no need to. Which also means that at level 30 you won’t face monsters that the Fighter can hit on anything but a 1, while the Wizard needs a 20.
Graham´s last post: Decisions, decisions…
In hopes to lighten this up a bit; and because I seem to be getting old and unimaginative, I thought this would be a fun question. What were your favorite multi-class characters in E3 that were stronger than a mono-class of the same level?
Nero: My two favorites were not particularly great but I always found them fun/hilarious – a Rogue 1/ Ranger ?/ Fighter 4 using a composite longbow and getting sneak attack with it, weapon focus and specialization, etc. It was particularly nasty when used in the game Neverwinter Nights because you pretty much always got sneak attack damage. Pretty sure it’s better in most ways than a straight level 5+ ranger as far as to hit and dmg output.
and a Halfling Paladin 2/ Monk 1/ Bard 1, a level 4 character with at LEAST +5 for each save, not particularly good in other respects but considering the amount of balance put into each class’ save progression, this breaks it right away.
HAH! That’s great. We definitely have had some fighter/rogue, or ranger/rogue combos. Gives sneak attack, and a good spread of skills and feats. 1 rogue/4 fighter/? ranger would make a strong archer. Weapon specialization and level one sneak attack could be worth slightly less hp and the xp penalty for tri-classing. Cheesy, but not as cheesy as specializing in small thrown weapons with a high strength fighter in E2. We have had very little triple or more multi-classing attempts. We have always roll played our multi-classing, and we are old school so you would never see a multi class paladin. Fun stuff though.
I always liked my silly Rogue/Paladin Blade Dancer in terms of off beat multi classing.
When Duskblade came it out it removed the need for some of the dabbling you’d do to take things like Dragon Disciple…
The Main Event´s last post: Hit Him in the Knees