Houserules for multi-classing / Gestalt

[DaveTheMagicWeasel]

Right, just trying to build my first multi-classed 4e character is an exercise in utter frustration  .  It's not helped by the fact the Paladin class seems to be wank (the MAD, especially if you're a Dragonborn and want some Con as well, is ridiculous - Paladin looks set to be the new Monk).

Be that as it may, it's the lack of class features that is annoying me.  I want some Warlord multiclassing for my character's leader-esque schtick, and Cha-based Paladin seems to obviously go with Cha-based Inspiring Warlord - leading from the front.  Oh, but you can't get Inspiring Presence from multi-classing, which means all those Cha-based Warlord powers aren't anything special in the hands of my high Cha Paladin! 

And heaven help you if you happen to want to spend some feats on anything else! And if a couple of fighter powers match your character concept you can fucking forget it!

AAAAARRRRRRGGH! 

So, afaic, new multi-classing rules are inevitable if there's any chance of salvaging this edition (if not a complete rewrite of the character classes!).  May as well start now.

What I'm wondering is how much Gestalting a couple of classes would actually change things?  The numbers on the powers themselves wouldn't change that much - they'd still be level appropriate attack mods, characters would just have more options.

Possible problems I could see would be stacking up of leader bonuses from party synergy, and the proliferation of encounter powers to let people make lots of powerful attacks (would that even be a bad thing?  Does anyone really want to just spam at-will powers after the first few rounds of combat?).

So, thoughts?  Would CRs need changing?  Or just extra monsters maybe?

[pfooti]

At first glance, I'd say that giving a broader selection of powers to choose from, but still only gaining the powers on a normal schedule (so, only one utility power at level 2, but either a paladin or a warlord one) would probably keep the PCs relatively balanced. Still more powerful than a normal PC, but not terrible. Of course, there are probably some hidden super-combos that you don't see right away that would make gestalting a challenge.

[DaveTheMagicWeasel]

That's what I'm thinking - the powers themselves would still conform to the maths for the monster defences.

Limiting the number of powers should work, then Gestalt just means doubling up on class abilities, which is a boost, but not too major.  Maybe CR+1 at the most.

Best combo I can think of is Ranger with either Rogue or Warlock - doubling Hunter's Quarry up on Sneak Attack/Warlock's Curse.  It's not too obscene tho, and it's a trade between gestalting 2 classes in the same role or getting some versatility.

[brislove]

I did answer your paladin warlord quandary with a build in this thread.

You don't get inspiring presence, but honestly that isn't a big deal, you just take a paladin power on the levels where your best option requires inspiring presence. Mose powers are not based on either of the class features, and some of the ones that are, are still good.

[Balthanon]

One option I see for this is actually allowing Retraining on class features for multiclass characters.  Allow a character with a multiclass feat to retrain one of their existing class features for one of the class features from their second class.  That seems like it should eliminate a fair portion of the power differential involved in just doubling up on class features using something already defined in the rules.

It doesn't address the fact that a wizard/fighter is going to have a measly 4 hp and 6 healing surges throughout their entire career (or that a multiclass fighter will be 3 skills behind a rogue without spending a ton of feats), but it helps a little in loosening up the straight-jacket feeling on 4e multiclassing.

[MittenNinja]

The only problem I see with that is the fact that not all the class features are on equal footing. I don't think First Strike (Rog), Combat Challenge (Ftr), and Lay on Hands (Pal) are all on the same power level for example.

[DaveTheMagicWeasel]

The only problem I see with that is the fact that not all the class features are on equal footing. I don't think First Strike (Rog), Combat Challenge (Ftr), and Lay on Hands (Pal) are all on the same power level for example.

True.

Also, I'm now thinking gestalt wouldn't be so great an idea.  What it would likely do is push players towards a small subset of optimized options - e.g. Fighter // Paladin would have unbeatable battlefield control, and a Ranger // Rogue would deal massive damage (assuming you dual wield a couple of rogue weapons).  But, it then has the same problem as multiclassing - a lot of class options just don't mesh all that well.

What I'm now thinking would be the way to go is rewrite Paragon Multiclassing so that you pick up some class abilities.  If you look, the Paragon Paths get class abilities (by any other name - call em "path abilities" now I guess) at level 11 and 16.  In contrast, while Paragon Multiclassing gets some extra powers at the same levels as the Paragon Paths, but all it gets by way of a "class ability" is an extra at-will power.  That's pretty much inferior by definition, and you're paying the higher opportunity cost in feats for the privilege.

So, class abilities at 11 and 16 imo.  It'll need to be done for each class individually - all class abilities are not created equally.  But if, say, Paladin Paragon Multiclassing gave Divine Challenge at 11 and Lay on Hands at 16 then another class could cross over into the Defender role.  They have to wait 10 levels to do it, but that's the best we're gonna manage I reckon.  Those example abilities are probably better than Paragon Paths tho - so either we tone em down a bit (limited uses?), or we take the view that 4 feat prereqs entitle you to summat juicy (playtesting is gonna be needed to decide I reckon).

I actually think 4e is going to see a lot of homebrewed classes.  If you wanna play a concept that isn't very well supported just starting from scratch might be easiest.

In fact, I am now going to create "DaveTheMagicWeasel's Quick 'N' Easy 4e Paladin Variant"

*drumroll*






The Divine Champion: Paladin Class abilities, but picks powers from the Fighter list

You see where I'm going here?  Let's add in:

The Hordebreaker: Fighter class abilities + Warlord Powers

The Warchief: Warlord class abilities + Paladin Powers

Now, some combos aren't gonna work as well as others, some will be downright bad, but I can't see any of them being broken/overpowered, and it nicely multiplies the available options without the need to go through and design 30 levels worth of powers (for all my fellow lazy DMs out there :wink).

[Balthanon]

The only problem I see with that is the fact that not all the class features are on equal footing. I don't think First Strike (Rog), Combat Challenge (Ftr), and Lay on Hands (Pal) are all on the same power level for example.

Well, a little work on the DMs part could probably separate them into categories.  Lay on Hands and First Strike might not be even, but Lay on Hands and Sneak Attack might be more comparable.  I could almost see using feats as a metric for measuring them actually, which could also allow you to trade out more than just class abilities.  If each trained skill, armor proficiency, and maybe weapon proficiency (or category?) is worth a feat they could presumably be traded for each other.

In fact, looking at the other abilities, I would probably go with something along these lines:

One extra hit point per level above 4 is equal to 2 feats (Toughness x2 = 10 hit points per tier)
One trained skill is equal to 1 feat (Skill Training)
+2 to one defense is equal to 1 feat (Great Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes)
One armor proficiency is worth 1 feat (Armor Proficiency)
One weapon category is worth 1 feat (or more, Weapon Proficiency)
One implement is worth 1 feat (or more, Second Implement)
Two healing surges are worth 1 feat (Durable)

Then it would pretty much be depending on the fact that you can't exceed another classes base values to reign these in somewhat.  For the class abilities, we could probably separate them into three categories of power/usefulness fairly easily.  Something like:

1	2	3
Ritual Casting Fighting Style Ritual Casting Eldritch Pact First Strike F. Weapon T. Prime Shot Combat Leader Prime Shot R. Weapon T.	healing word Inspiring Word Channel Divinity Channel Divinity Shadow Walk lay on hands Rogue Tactics A. Implement M. C. Presence C. Superiority Healer's Lore	Cantrips Spellbook C. Challenge Divine Challenge Hunter's Quarry Warlock's Curse Sneak Attack

Almost definitely not perfect, but it might be workable.  (Of course, it is basically turning 4e into a point buy system.)

[DaveTheMagicWeasel]

Almost definitely not perfect, but it might be workable.  (Of course, it is basically turning 4e into a point buy system.)

That might actually be the best way to go about it - similar to the various class construction systems for 3.5, assign each class ability a numerical value and just let people build their own base fom which to build.  Then pick any power list to use and you're set.

[Balthanon]

The major problem that I encountered when I was going through and doing the math for use during multiclassing is the point differences between the classes at the moment.  I did a few of the abilities as .5 (most of the "get a single +1 bonus" abilities) rather than 1 and the wizard spellbook/cantrips as 4 and I came out with 37.5 for the paladin, 33 for the fighter, and 23 for the rogue, though most came in around 26-27.

Now that may mean I'm overvaluing armor, weapons, hit points, or another area that fighter and paladin excel in (and rogue's are deficient), but those imbalances do seem like they would throw things off a bit.  The other potential reason is that the power lists are being balanced out by class abilities, but off hand I don't think rogues have the most powerful set of powers in the game.

[Callix]

You're seriously overvaluing weapon proficiencies. "All Military", while flexible, is no more than 3-4 weapons over a character's whole career. But I'd agree that the Paladin's features are higher point-value than most other classes, as they - and clerics - need both Wis and Cha to use them all effectively.

[Balthanon]

3-4 weapons over the course of the character's life is technically 3-4 feats-- though weapon proficiency as a feat has always been lackluster.  It basically represents flexibility though, which is the same thing that can be said of the spellbook ability the wizard has.  Dropping that and implement down to 1 feat (I had 1 weapon at .5 and a weapon category at 2, due to the same 3-4 estimate) and categorizing rogues as "half" a weapon proficiency rather than going based on individual weapons evened things out a bit for rogues.  It dropped everyone down to around 21-23, with the new outliers being paladin, fighter, and cleric.  (And cleric was only 24.5)

Fighters and paladins are still up at 29 and 33.5 respectively, and I'm not sure tweaking the numbers on the base abilities is going to change that much.  Paladins and clerics did end up with the highest point values on their class abilities (7 in total).  The armor, hit points, and healing surges were what really bumped up paladins and fighters, accounting for a difference of about 6.  The paladin beats out the fighter in skills, implements, and defense bonus-- putting him up to average or superior in just about everything.

Adding MAD into the equation might change things around a bit--
 - cleric powers (Str, Wis; secondary Cha), abilties (Wis, Cha (secondary))
 - fighter powers (Str; secondary Con, Dex, Wis), abilities (Wis)
 - paladin powers (Str, Cha; secondary Wis), abilities (Str, Cha, Wis)
 - ranger powers (Str, Dex; secondary Wis), abilities ()
 - rogue powers (Dex; secondary Str, Cha), abilities (Str, Cha)
 - warlock powers (Con, Cha; secondary Int), abilities ()
 - warlord powers (Str; secondary Cha, Int), abilities (Cha, Int)
 - wizard powers (Int; minor secondary Wis), abilities (Wis, Con, Dex)

Looking at that, I don't think that it would smooth things out, but it does make a difference.  While clerics and paladins definitely have some of the worst MAD in the game, warlocks and rangers are only moderately better.  Wizards definitely have the least, with only a couple of powers even using their secondary stat, plus their abilities.  In terms of ranking, I would probably go Cleric/Paladin (3), Ranger/Warlock (2), Fighter/Warlord/Rogue (1), and Wizard (0).

[Omen of Peace]

But it's feats that make the Wizard more MAD: Spell Focus in particular, Seize the Moment too (it's a general feat, and not a must-have, but it seems pretty desirable).

Also, Shadow Walk could easily be a high tier ability: Rangers and Rogue can make a killing with it.

[Balthanon]

I would say unless you happen to be playing a wand focused wizard, Seize the Moment isn't going to be worth the investment-- that is a significant amount of Dexterity.  Spell Focus is definitely a must have if you're not playing pure damage, but it also isn't something that requires continual investment.  You only need the bare minimum, so I would say it's a minor contributor to MAD at best.  If you want it early, it requires 2 points, if you're willing to wait until epic it requires 1 point.  That isn't putting a big strain on the typical wizard's ability scores.

That said, there might be other general feats (or multiclass feats) that are desirable, but you can't really account for that in evaluating the class as a whole.  The other areas that I didn't account for in looking at MAD are the skills that the classes have available and the paragon paths.

For Shadowwalk, I think it is actually fair at a "2 feat" ranking.  You're essentially getting a +2 AC bonus out of that, which is equivalent to two armor feats, conditionally.  Assuming you're able to use Stealth with the concealment, that does bump it up considerably though and might be enough to make it 3.

[Omen of Peace]

For Shadowwalk, I think it is actually fair at a "2 feat" ranking.  You're essentially getting a +2 AC bonus out of that, which is equivalent to two armor feats, conditionally.  Assuming you're able to use Stealth with the concealment, that does bump it up considerably though and might be enough to make it 3.

Concealment is +2 to all defenses - but only against melee and ranged attacks (the most frequent ones I believe). It does allow you to use Stealth - that was my point, but I should have stated it more clearly.

[Balthanon]

I missed the +2 to all defenses-- that would definitely bump it up.

[Kuroimaken]

Skimming over most of the classes, I see that the majority of them usually gets 3-4 class features: one of them "defines" the class (I.E. it's what the class is all about: Sneak Attack, Hunter's Quarry, Warlock's Curse, Channel Divinity, and so on), the second one adds some sort of static bonus that may or may not come into play all the time (Shadow Walk, Weapon Talent, Prime Shot; this may or may not be reproduceable with a feat) and one that is completely dependent on the player's choice (sometimes mixed in with the second, such as the Warlock Pacts). Then there are the oddballs like the Wizard's spellbook. We'll call them 'Defining', 'Static', 'Choice' and 'Oddball' for easier reference. 

Anyhow, on a priority scale, 'Defining' class features get the top spot, with 'Choice' ones coming second and 'Static' coming third. 'Oddballs' should be seen on a case by case basis: the fact the Wizard knows more dailies and utilities, but cannot actually use more is a boon but not exactly an issue, as they're limited by levels. Also, 'Choice' features get the second spot because they're usually synergistic with 'Defining' features somehow (again, Warlock Pact and Warlock's Curse). As far as gestalting goes, it shouldn't really be much of a problem to just go with doubling up on power selection but not necessarily class features. The reason behind it is simple: no class is really dependant on a single attribute anymore, they've all got varying degrees of MAD.

[Callix]

My point on MAD was not so much the volume of abilities, but the defense overlap anti-synergy. Clerics and PAladins end up with terrible Reflex defenses, as do a number of Str/Con (Axe, hammer, etc) Fighters (the rest of them have low Will). While Warlock needs as many abilities, they are spread so that all three defenses can be boosted while also helping offensive abilities, and that is a significant advantage.

[Kuroimaken]

My point on MAD was not so much the volume of abilities, but the defense overlap anti-synergy. Clerics and PAladins end up with terrible Reflex defenses, as do a number of Str/Con (Axe, hammer, etc) Fighters (the rest of them have low Will). While Warlock needs as many abilities, they are spread so that all three defenses can be boosted while also helping offensive abilities, and that is a significant advantage.

I believe the weirdest thing I figured about Wizards is that despite their class primarily boosting Will, Wizards have high Reflex saves because of their primary stat. It's just... freaky. Suddenly the scrawny bookwork isn't such easy pickings for dodgeball games anymore.

[X-Codes]

My point on MAD was not so much the volume of abilities, but the defense overlap anti-synergy. Clerics and PAladins end up with terrible Reflex defenses, as do a number of Str/Con (Axe, hammer, etc) Fighters (the rest of them have low Will). While Warlock needs as many abilities, they are spread so that all three defenses can be boosted while also helping offensive abilities, and that is a significant advantage.

While classes use three stats, a given character will almost always use only two with any frequency.  As such, it's actually unlikely that any single effective character will ever have four strong defenses without taking feats like Iron Will.