Show
I'm running a 4e campaign, currently going through the H series of adventures with 4 characters: human cleric; human ranger; tiefling warlock; dragonborn fighter (DMPC); and an occasional 5th player: eladrin wizard.
My players are mostly enjoying 4e, but some of them haven't really become attached to their characters the way they used to in 3.x. I'm not really sure what the reason for this is, to tell you the truth.
Anyway, ever since the Forgotten Realms books have come out, one of my players (the human cleric) has been itching to play a genasi wizard. He really likes the genasi and just recently realized how good some of the class features of the the wizard are (mostly the cantrips, which our occasional eladrin wizard always seems to forget). His enthusiasm for the genasi wizard is basically the enthusiasm he (and everyone else) used to show for their characters in 3.x and, since I find this type of enthusiasm for a character concept really enriches the D&D experience, I want to let him make the switch.
The problem: What the heck are we going to do without a leader? I find the PCs really need the healing the leader class provides and I'm not sure that combat will go well without one.
So, I've come up with three potential solutions to this probem.
1) Reclass my DMPC dragonborn as a leader (I.e. remake the character)
Problem: Now we have no defender, which is just as big a problem as not having a leader. I suppose I could make the dragonborn a warlord that fights up front; this would mitigate the problem but I'm not too enthusiastic about doing it.
2) Have the player who wants to play the genasi wizard play two characters (I.E. The new wizard and the old cleric. NOTE: This was his idea). This could work, but it does make roleplaying a little harder ("Which of your characters just said that?"). If the human ranger also wanted to play two characters, then I would either give him my dragonborn fighter, or at least get him to make his second character a defender, since we will need one.
(Note: I won't let the other players take two characters simply because they haven't been playing D&D all that long and I don't think they would handle it as well as the cleric and the ranger)
Now, this could work, and if everyone involved agrees then this is probably what will happen. Still, I need a back up plan in case this solution is shot down (and truthfully, I'd rather that everyone just plays one character, so I'm trying to find a way for that to happen)
3) Have my dragonborn fighter multiclass into one of the leader classes; probably the cleric.
Problem: A fighter/cleric doesn't really get that much healing, which is the one big thing I think my group needs from the leader. Plus, I'm really not impressed with the multiclassing in 4e (healing word as a daily for muticlass cleric? That's pretty crappy)
Solution: Well, we've finally gotten around to the point of this thread: Making extra multiclass feats to add more of the secondary class to the multiclassed character. I started with the cleric, since that's the one I'm probably going to use, and decided I should make the rest.
My players are mostly enjoying 4e, but some of them haven't really become attached to their characters the way they used to in 3.x. I'm not really sure what the reason for this is, to tell you the truth.
Anyway, ever since the Forgotten Realms books have come out, one of my players (the human cleric) has been itching to play a genasi wizard. He really likes the genasi and just recently realized how good some of the class features of the the wizard are (mostly the cantrips, which our occasional eladrin wizard always seems to forget). His enthusiasm for the genasi wizard is basically the enthusiasm he (and everyone else) used to show for their characters in 3.x and, since I find this type of enthusiasm for a character concept really enriches the D&D experience, I want to let him make the switch.
The problem: What the heck are we going to do without a leader? I find the PCs really need the healing the leader class provides and I'm not sure that combat will go well without one.
So, I've come up with three potential solutions to this probem.
1) Reclass my DMPC dragonborn as a leader (I.e. remake the character)
Problem: Now we have no defender, which is just as big a problem as not having a leader. I suppose I could make the dragonborn a warlord that fights up front; this would mitigate the problem but I'm not too enthusiastic about doing it.
2) Have the player who wants to play the genasi wizard play two characters (I.E. The new wizard and the old cleric. NOTE: This was his idea). This could work, but it does make roleplaying a little harder ("Which of your characters just said that?"). If the human ranger also wanted to play two characters, then I would either give him my dragonborn fighter, or at least get him to make his second character a defender, since we will need one.
(Note: I won't let the other players take two characters simply because they haven't been playing D&D all that long and I don't think they would handle it as well as the cleric and the ranger)
Now, this could work, and if everyone involved agrees then this is probably what will happen. Still, I need a back up plan in case this solution is shot down (and truthfully, I'd rather that everyone just plays one character, so I'm trying to find a way for that to happen)
3) Have my dragonborn fighter multiclass into one of the leader classes; probably the cleric.
Problem: A fighter/cleric doesn't really get that much healing, which is the one big thing I think my group needs from the leader. Plus, I'm really not impressed with the multiclassing in 4e (healing word as a daily for muticlass cleric? That's pretty crappy)
Solution: Well, we've finally gotten around to the point of this thread: Making extra multiclass feats to add more of the secondary class to the multiclassed character. I started with the cleric, since that's the one I'm probably going to use, and decided I should make the rest.
While I have been looking for a feat that allows a non-caster to multi-class into Wizard for the cantrips, I'm not sure if Arcane Initiate II balances with the others. Allowing what could be seen as 3 "class features" might be overpowered compared to getting extra uses of the same class feature.
What about if we made Arcane Initiate II allow the use of cantrips as dailies? That would fit more with using a real spell as a daily and balance with getting 3 cantrips for the feat.
These are great ideas, likely similar to what we'll see when _Martial Power_ comes out.
While I have been looking for a feat that allows a non-caster to multi-class into Wizard for the cantrips, I'm not sure if Arcane Initiate II balances with the others. Allowing what could be seen as 3 "class features" might be overpowered compared to getting extra uses of the same class feature.
What about if we made Arcane Initiate II allow the use of cantrips as dailies? That would fit more with using a real spell as a daily and balance with getting 3 cantrips for the feat.
I originally had Arcane Initiate II allow the use of a cantrip as an encounter power (I.E. You could use Light in one encounter, and Mage Hand in the next encounter, but you couldn't use both in one encounter). I also posted this thread over at the ENWorld forums and everyone who responded thought that the Arcane Initiate II feat was really underpowered compared to the rest of the feats. Most of the responders said that giving the cantrips as at-will would be more balanced compared to the other feats.
So, I wouldn't make them Dailies, but maybe making them encounter powers, instead of at-will, would balance out more...
What do you think?
I think Paragon tier should be either a second class feature or a slight improvement to the class feature provide by the first MC feat.
I can see that - especially because one class's at-wills to tend to become someone else's encounters and encounters tend to become dailies. Cantrips as encounters rather than at-wills works best in terms of balance while still allowing a multi-class option that provides access to the archetypal Wizard schtick.
While this is a correct assesment of the standard conversion for multiclassing, Cantrips are really too weak to balance if you only give them per encounter use. Leave them as at-wills - by definition they have little or no effect on combat, so it isn't a big deal.
Also, it was pointed out to me at ENWorld that there is errata concerning the Warrior of the Wild feat. Apparently when a multiclass ranger uses Hunter's Quarry it only lasts until the end of the next turn (which would give you two turns of extra damage). So that might mean that my feats are a little overpowered at the moment. The two feats that this affects are Pact Initiate II and Warrior of the Wild II. So:
Warrior of the Wild II Option 1
Prerequisite: Warrior of the Wild
Benefit: When you use Hunter's Quarry to make an enemy your quarry it lasts until the end of encounter (or until the enemy is dead) instead of until the end of your next turn.
Warrior of the Wild II Option 2
Prerequisite: Warrior of the Wild
Benefit: You can use the ranger's Hunter's Quarry class feature twice per encounter. The target you mark as your quarry remains your quarry until the end of your next turn.
Which of these options do you guys think would be better?
Pact Initiate II
Prerequisite: Pact Initiate
Benefit: Once per encounter you can use the warlock's curse class feature. The target you set your curse on remains cursed until the end of your next turn.
Cantrips as at-wills aren't that unbalanced, especially considering that they would take that second feat to get. The most likely effect - for a character that I'd play at least - would be enhancing role-playing, highlighting the character's background or training. And enhancing role-playing is always a good thing.
I think that using Hunter's Quarry twice per encounter balances better against the other feats, and since many opponents don't last the full encounter, it makes it worth an extra feat to get the extra use.
Cantrips as at-wills aren't that unbalanced, especially considering that they would take that second feat to get. The most likely effect - for a character that I'd play at least - would be enhancing role-playing, highlighting the character's background or training. And enhancing role-playing is always a good thing.
Agreed. I think I'll change Warrior of the Wild II to just be the second option.