Multiclassics redux

I’m lazyblogging today. Rather than completing the write-up of the last Endday campaign session (which rocked, btw) I’m going to give Third Edition D&D some of the love it deserves and link back to an old post of mine from September 2007: Multiclassics.

With 4th Edition of D&D just around the corner, the whole debate about what’s going to be “in” and what’s “out” of the system has sparked in me a renewed interest – and liking – for the current Edition.

There’s a lot of noise on the ‘net among the role-playing community about the direction the developers are taking the system. The more I read – and so far, we’re just getting hints and clues about stuff which isn’t even finalized yet – the more I think 4E D&D is going to be an over-engineered mess. But that’s a blogpost for another time, ok?

Fun to see how my opinion of 4e changed after sitting down and actually playing it. Looking back, I think the pre-4e marketing campaign really did do more harm than good.

See y’all tomorrow!

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. Also: TRAITOR!! :D
    .-= Alex Schröder´s last blog ..Comments on Lulu – Again =-.

  2. Greywulf says:

    Guilty as charged! :D

  3. Thunderforge says:

    In the post you referenced, you mentioned that the greatest strength in 3.5 was multi-classing. That only appears in limited form in 4e and even the hybrid playtest doesn’t give the full power that 3.5 offered. After all the (well deserved) praise you’ve given 4e, do you still think that the lack of multiclassing is as big of a weakness as you said back then?

  4. Greywulf says:

    @Thunderforge Good question. Now we’ve gotten used to the system I’d say that 4e multi-classing is Very Good Indeed – as far as it goes. I like that there’s no by-the-book restrictions so multi-classed Monk and Paladins as a-ok. As I said in the original post it’s up to the GM and the campaign setting to set class ad race limits, not the rules.

    I also like that it’s possible to multi-class right at 1st level and just costs a Feat to do so. The character ends up feeling more like an 80/20 split between the two classes where the feat-gained class serves more to add flavour to the character. A Fighter/Rogue in 4e is a very different build to a Rogue/Fighter for example, whereas in Third Edition the only real difference would be the number of Skill Ranks.

    To me, 4e multi-classing is just that – a flavour thing. It’s a way of fine-tuning your character so that it’s unique in some way. Add in the fact that it opens up the Paragon Classes (a Wizard Daggermaster!) and it’s a great mechanic. How much you want to multi-class (ie, take Powers from the second class) is entirely up to you, but it costs an additional Feat (Novice/Acolyte/Adept) to do so – that’s the cost of flexibility, I guess.

    It’s good, but I would like it to go further. I’d like an option where you can freely mix-and-match between two (but no more than two) classes. I haven’t explored the Hybrid rules yet so maybe they provide just that option. We’ll see.

  5. Elda King says:

    I did not like the multiclass system of 4E at all. Or yet, I love it, but not for multiclass; for weapon-specialization (Spiked Chain, Bolas, Blowgun, etc) and for bloodlines (dhampyr) it works well indeed.
    I just can’t stand for example that, by multiclassing as a Warlock, you will not be able to curse anyone. Besides your pact, the curse the most iconic ability of any warlock. And you won’t gain it until… well, never (actually, in Arcane Power there’s a different multiclass feat that gives you it, but I don’t want to have a class in the PHB andthe multiclass for it in a suplement).
    I liked hybrid, thought – I actually had created a very similar system as a house-rule – but I don’t believe it would stand alone. While with multiclass you’ll always be a dabbler in one class, in hybrid you must always dedicate evenly to each class…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *