A Cleric who grew up on the harsh streets of the City of Sails. A thief once, her faith in Pelor allowed her to rise up out of the gutter and find a new purpose for her life. Nonetheless, she sometimes catches her partymembers off-guard when she periodically displays rather in-depth knowledge of thievery and once in a while they notice her smash monsters with her mace in a rather sneaky and opportunistic fashion.
(Cleric with Sneak of Shadows)
A lot of people are calling to attention the day powers you get, but I'm more intrigued by the skill training. Does anyone know what skill training usually implies for 4th edition?
I'm wondering if it means you get to pick up stealth/lockpick/pickpocket/traps if you take rogue training. Honestly, that seems like it is tons and tons more useful than just the per encounter sneak attack.
It CAN'T be that, because then it would just mean that anyone could pick locks or detect/disable traps just by taking a feat. If that is what it means I will be ecstatic because it means you don't HAVE to have a rogue in the party. But I don't think they want you to be able to get by without a rogue.
ElderCat on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
The reaction I just got is:
"So, if I decide to multiclass, I forget a skill in order to get the new one. What is this, pokemon?"
So, overall Im really liking the new multiclassing system, but the one thing that kinda gets to me is its flexibility. I mean, you do get locked down into one class, but you can also change your whole set of borrowed powers every time you level up. That seems like a little much, I guess they know what they're doing because everything else from 4e has been pretty amazing, but this multiclassing worries me slightly.
It CAN'T be that, because then it would just mean that anyone could pick locks or detect/disable traps just by taking a feat. If that is what it means I will be ecstatic because it means you don't HAVE to have a rogue in the party. But I don't think they want you to be able to get by without a rogue.
I'm pretty sure they do want you to be able to do that. The rogue's class role has been redefined as "striker", not "trap monkey".
They've already established in the article about traps that rogues will not be the only member of the party that will know how to identify and deal with traps.
Being trained in theivery means a character of another class who takes Sneak of Shadows will essentially be able to fill the function in the fashion that a rogue would.
Posting a reply simply so that I can continue to have a blue circle to check on every day. Ha!
No seriously, RPG.net has got to be the worst place to pick up on information for fourth because some of the people there can not simply get over the fact that Wizards has the damn license. If they're not bitching about that, they're bitching because obviously this is all being done to screw the third party support, which is really the reason Wizards is being more tight-gripped about the GSL this time around (I mean, I can see why Wizards would get upset when it was common to say, "I don't even buy the PHB. I just use the SRD / buy Mongoose's PHB Lite instead"). ENWorld's just as bad, Wizards is bad for the complete opposite reason, and god damn it, if I wasn't waiting on a reply from Zeb Cook about Spelljammer on Dragonsfoot I'd stop going there and reading every retarded thing they put in on there.
Whoo. That felt good to get out. Multi-classing - pretty interesting stuff! Still wondering just what it is I'm not liking about the art direction though. Some of it's cool, but most of it is just meh for me. I loved the stuff in the Previews though...
Oh. Anyone have an opinion on WotC not being at Gencon this year?
ravensmuse on
READ MY BLOG - Web Serial Fantasy - Tabletop Gaming Snips & Reviews - Flea Market Hunting
So, overall Im really liking the new multiclassing system, but the one thing that kinda gets to me is its flexibility. I mean, you do get locked down into one class, but you can also change your whole set of borrowed powers every time you level up. That seems like a little much, I guess they know what they're doing because everything else from 4e has been pretty amazing, but this multiclassing worries me slightly.
In general it sounds like retraining is necessary in order to keep your character in balance with the encounters he'll be facing for the party's level. If multi-classing locked you into the initial selections you made, that could be crippling.
So, overall Im really liking the new multiclassing system, but the one thing that kinda gets to me is its flexibility. I mean, you do get locked down into one class, but you can also change your whole set of borrowed powers every time you level up. That seems like a little much, I guess they know what they're doing because everything else from 4e has been pretty amazing, but this multiclassing worries me slightly.
See, I love this aspect of it. It means you are free to try lots of things, and don't have to get locked down into planning some kind of "optimized" character, which was a part of 3.x that really turned me off.
No seriously, RPG.net has got to be the worst place to pick up on information for fourth because some of the people there can not simply get over the fact that Wizards has the damn license. If they're not bitching about that, they're bitching because obviously this is all being done to screw the third party support, which is really the reason Wizards is being more tight-gripped about the GSL this time around (I mean, I can see why Wizards would get upset when it was common to say, "I don't even buy the PHB. I just use the SRD / buy Mongoose's PHB Lite instead"). ENWorld's just as bad, Wizards is bad for the complete opposite reason, and god damn it, if I wasn't waiting on a reply from Zeb Cook about Spelljammer on Dragonsfoot I'd stop going there and reading every retarded thing they put in on there.
The RPGnet community have never been fans of WotC. They've always been into other products, some d20. Some of them even were bitching about "T$R" and things in 2E the last time I was there (+1yr ago), ok? Probably that's all that needs to be said is you're looking in the wrong place.
ENWorld was a little more pro-WotC, but they still focused on more general d20 than on WotC products. They like Mongoose... and eventually went over some of the White Wolf stuff, but not that in-depth.
The only real big boards that ever really focused on WotC products are WotC's own board of crazies and Giant in the Playground, who are generally pretty tame.
I wonder how all the old grognards of rec.games.frp.dnd like Michael Scott Brown would be twitching over this.
I like the look of this multiclassing. As I've said before I always prefered the idea of a "Wizard with Fighter Training" or "Fighter with Wizard Training" over Ftr5/Wiz5 in both fluff and crunch terms.
On a mostly unrelated topic I remember reading about Rangers and being a little miffed, but I forget the source. Am I right in thinking that to be an effective Ranger now I'd really have to either go with a bow or dual-wield? Is there any room for a weapon-and-shield ranger in 4e? I always liked the concept of the Dwarf Ranger who patrols tunnels and caves rather than forests so I'd like to have him be able to track things, have heightened senses and favoured enemies but still fight with a shield or a two handed weapon. Think a Fighter with Ranger Training could make this concept work?
On a mostly unrelated topic I remember reading about Rangers and being a little miffed, but I forget the source. Am I right in thinking that to be an effective Ranger now I'd really have to either go with a bow or dual-wield? Is there any room for a weapon-and-shield ranger in 4e? I always liked the concept of the Dwarf Ranger who patrols tunnels and caves rather than forests so I'd like to have him be able to track things, have heightened senses and favoured enemies but still fight with a shield or a two handed weapon. Think a Fighter with Ranger Training could make this concept work?
Hrm, it's hard to say there. The ranger as we understand either fights with two weapons or a bow. On the other hand, we don't know about shield bashing yet, so some of those ranger double attacks might be pretty cool for that dwarf. Otherwise you might be out of luck.
Also, it's possible that with just the first ranger feat and maybe some like, ranger feats that make hunter's quarry better(?) you'd get a cool character.
On a mostly unrelated topic I remember reading about Rangers and being a little miffed, but I forget the source. Am I right in thinking that to be an effective Ranger now I'd really have to either go with a bow or dual-wield? Is there any room for a weapon-and-shield ranger in 4e? I always liked the concept of the Dwarf Ranger who patrols tunnels and caves rather than forests so I'd like to have him be able to track things, have heightened senses and favoured enemies but still fight with a shield or a two handed weapon. Think a Fighter with Ranger Training could make this concept work?
To be fair, the ranger in 3.x was even more restrictive. I remember hearing earlier that thrown weapons are going to be awesome now as well.
A dwarf who dual wields axes, and also throws axes at people would totally be doable.
I liked how rangers didn't have a dex requirement for dual wield. It allowed for a sort of super gruff strong half-orc in-tune-with-nature kind of guy.
I liked how rangers didn't have a dex requirement for dual wield. It allowed for a sort of super gruff strong half-orc in-tune-with-nature kind of guy.
They still don't, which is nice.
The most exciting part of the multiclass rules, for me, is what it opens conceptually.
If you were to fully invest in multiclassing, the math is interesting.
10 Level Fighter, has 6 feats, 2 at-will, 3 encounter, 3 daily, and 3 utility powers (according to the chart in the other article about starting a higher level guy).
So, say he uses his 2nd level feat for Arcana Initiate.
4th level, swaps 1 encounter power with another.
Again at 6th, uses 8th level feat to swap a utility power, and swaps a daily at 10th.
So, at 10th level, his powers look like this:
Fighter Exploits: 2 at-will, 1 encounter, 2 daily, and 2 utility.
Wizard Spells: 2 encounter, 1 daily, 1 utility.
That's pretty balanced, I think. If you're hardcore dedicated into being a spell-slinging warrior, there you go.
I'm pretty sure rangers and two weapon fighting pre-date Drizzt but I have no evidence to back it up. I'm going to go scour the web so I can prove you wrong at a later time.
Kay?
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
There are two precepts of this multi-classing rule that are less than interesting to me:
1) It's not multi-classing, it's getting one other set of powers from one class. Technically, two classes are "multiples" of one class, but they're limiting all characters until the end of time to dual-classing basically.
2) I don't know if I appreciate the idea of paying twice to get one thing. It seems like, in their effort to make "multi-classed characters" less powerful, they made all of them shitty. Why be a fighter/mage when you can be a fighter, and have more feats? We all know that the game designers are, to some extent, trying to make all the classes similar in terms of balance, and from what I've seen, this is the case. Not a great deal separates the rogue from the fighter from the wizard from the cleric, at least in terms of damaging powers. So, you give up your damaging powers, to get... damaging powers from a different class and the ability to say "I'm a fighter/wizard... sort of!" and fewer feats? Geh.
Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be the case.
I think the rangers and dual weapon thing happened in 2nd edition (as did spellcasting?)... IIRC in the original AD&D they were like a variation or specific type of fighter.
And I believe the Icewind Dale books may have been published before 2nd edition.
I could be wrong though.
Horseshoe on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Well, like, Fighters get powers that say, "Hey, it's harder to hit anyone but me!" and Paladins get powers that say, like, "If you try to hit anyone but me it hurts you!", or something, right?
I could imagine being a Fighter and going for Paladin tank powers, for example.
Okay, found it. The first book with Drizzt was The Crystal Shard printed in 1988, and the release of Second Edition, which included two weapon fighting for Rangers as standard was in 1989.
It's possible that one affected the other, but I'm going to give it the stink eye and doubt it.
o_O
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
There are two precepts of this multi-classing rule that are less than interesting to me:
1) It's not multi-classing, it's getting one other set of powers from one class. Technically, two classes are "multiples" of one class, but they're limiting all characters until the end of time to dual-classing basically.
2) I don't know if I appreciate the idea of paying twice to get one thing. It seems like, in their effort to make "multi-classed characters" less powerful, they made all of them shitty. Why be a fighter/mage when you can be a fighter, and have more feats? We all know that the game designers are, to some extent, trying to make all the classes similar in terms of balance, and from what I've seen, this is the case. Not a great deal separates the rogue from the fighter from the wizard from the cleric, at least in terms of damaging powers. So, you give up your damaging powers, to get... fewer damaging powers from a different class and the ability to say "I'm a fighter/wizard... sort of!"
Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be the case.
The powers are geared towards the role those classes are for.
There are actually power advantages to combining powers from different roles if you're trying to go for one role.
For example, being a Fighter with Wizard training. Being able to use some of the Wizard's AoE immobilizing spells, on a tank? Pretty awesome, I think.
Having a highly mobile Striker class, like Warlock or Rogue, and the a handful of Cleric powers to heal and buff? I like it.
I think they've hit a good balance. Muticlassing is not really much more powerful than using those feats for, say, improving your class abilities and stuff. It's not for everybody, nor is it something that is always clearly advantageous.
But if you want to do it, and do it well, there's advantages.
There are two precepts of this multi-classing rule that are less than interesting to me:
1) It's not multi-classing, it's getting one other set of powers from one class. Technically, two classes are "multiples" of one class, but they're limiting all characters until the end of time to dual-classing basically.
2) I don't know if I appreciate the idea of paying twice to get one thing. It seems like, in their effort to make "multi-classed characters" less powerful, they made all of them shitty. Why be a fighter/mage when you can be a fighter, and have more feats? We all know that the game designers are, to some extent, trying to make all the classes similar in terms of balance, and from what I've seen, this is the case. Not a great deal separates the rogue from the fighter from the wizard from the cleric, at least in terms of damaging powers. So, you give up your damaging powers, to get... damaging powers from a different class and the ability to say "I'm a fighter/wizard... sort of!" and fewer feats? Geh.
Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be the case.
If that's the case they must've done a really really poor job with their "role" ideas. Strikers do the most damage, period. It's their reason for being.
I don't see a problem with limiting multi-classing down to just dual-classing. As it is, characters will have plenty of sources for powers, be it racial, their primary class, a second class if they so choose, a paragon path and an epic destiny, not to mention magic items.
What it looks like to me is that their aim with the new multi-classing rules is to make it so they are useful and worth taking, especially if it fits your character concept, while limiting it so that say... a Fighter multiclassed into Wizard isn't so good at it that the Wizard is out of a job.
I have no beef with it.
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
A Fighter/Wizard should choose powers that make him a better Defender. If he's trying to out-Controller the Wizard, he's being dumb.
Any kind of multiclass power choices should complement your chosen role. Trying to play a Cleric/Rogue as a Defender just isn't going to work. However, using the sneaky, dirty tricks of a Rogue to enhance your mobility and disable opponents while you chain buffs of them (making you a better Leader) is a good call.
If you want to play a Cleric/Rogue Striker, play a Rogue/Cleric instead.
I'm pretty sure rangers and two weapon fighting pre-date Drizzt but I have no evidence to back it up. I'm going to go scour the web so I can prove you wrong at a later time.
Kay?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that as with almost everything D&D, the Ranger class has its origins in something Tolkien.
(This is my excuse to get a blue dot on this thread)
I'm pretty sure rangers and two weapon fighting pre-date Drizzt but I have no evidence to back it up. I'm going to go scour the web so I can prove you wrong at a later time.
Kay?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that as with almost everything D&D, the Ranger class has its origins in something Tolkien.
(This is my excuse to get a blue dot on this thread)
I believe the prevailing thought is that the Ranger idea was modeled on Aragorn and his dudes. I don't remember anything specific about them fighting with two weapons.
Either way, it wasn't institutionalized into the game that rangers fought with two weapons until 2nd edition. I think.
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
The Ranger is the two-weapon and bow guy, the Fighter is the sword-and-board and two-hander guy.
That looks like it'll be true for the Player's Handbook, but the additional options in Martial Power may change that. Races & Classes mentions two-weapon fighters as a possible future option.
If you were to fully invest in multiclassing, the math is interesting.
10 Level Fighter, has 6 feats, 2 at-will, 3 encounter, 3 daily, and 3 utility powers (according to the chart in the other article about starting a higher level guy).
So, say he uses his 2nd level feat for Arcana Initiate.
4th level, swaps 1 encounter power with another.
Again at 6th, uses 8th level feat to swap a utility power, and swaps a daily at 10th.
So, at 10th level, his powers look like this:
Fighter Exploits: 2 at-will, 1 encounter, 2 daily, and 2 utility.
Wizard Spells: 2 encounter, 1 daily, 1 utility.
That's pretty balanced, I think. If you're hardcore dedicated into being a spell-slinging warrior, there you go.
Plus, you can take Battle Mage at 11th.
I'd overlooked the fact that the multiclass feat also lets you qualify for paragon paths from that class. I liked 4e's version of multiclassing before, but this makes it fantastic. It allows for a lot of different options, like a high defense Fighter that relies on Shadow Assassin's Riposte to wear his opponents down, or uses Warpriest's Challenge to make enemies waste their attacks on him.
Posts
Oh, and I demand a day counter! Day counter!
That ain't no shepherd.
I'm wondering if it means you get to pick up stealth/lockpick/pickpocket/traps if you take rogue training. Honestly, that seems like it is tons and tons more useful than just the per encounter sneak attack.
"So, if I decide to multiclass, I forget a skill in order to get the new one. What is this, pokemon?"
Jordan of Elienor, Human Shaman
It seems interesting, at the very least. For me 4E is still "read it in Borders" though. :P
I'm pretty sure they do want you to be able to do that. The rogue's class role has been redefined as "striker", not "trap monkey".
They've already established in the article about traps that rogues will not be the only member of the party that will know how to identify and deal with traps.
Being trained in theivery means a character of another class who takes Sneak of Shadows will essentially be able to fill the function in the fashion that a rogue would.
No seriously, RPG.net has got to be the worst place to pick up on information for fourth because some of the people there can not simply get over the fact that Wizards has the damn license. If they're not bitching about that, they're bitching because obviously this is all being done to screw the third party support, which is really the reason Wizards is being more tight-gripped about the GSL this time around (I mean, I can see why Wizards would get upset when it was common to say, "I don't even buy the PHB. I just use the SRD / buy Mongoose's PHB Lite instead"). ENWorld's just as bad, Wizards is bad for the complete opposite reason, and god damn it, if I wasn't waiting on a reply from Zeb Cook about Spelljammer on Dragonsfoot I'd stop going there and reading every retarded thing they put in on there.
Whoo. That felt good to get out. Multi-classing - pretty interesting stuff! Still wondering just what it is I'm not liking about the art direction though. Some of it's cool, but most of it is just meh for me. I loved the stuff in the Previews though...
Oh. Anyone have an opinion on WotC not being at Gencon this year?
In general it sounds like retraining is necessary in order to keep your character in balance with the encounters he'll be facing for the party's level. If multi-classing locked you into the initial selections you made, that could be crippling.
See, I love this aspect of it. It means you are free to try lots of things, and don't have to get locked down into planning some kind of "optimized" character, which was a part of 3.x that really turned me off.
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
ENWorld was a little more pro-WotC, but they still focused on more general d20 than on WotC products. They like Mongoose... and eventually went over some of the White Wolf stuff, but not that in-depth.
The only real big boards that ever really focused on WotC products are WotC's own board of crazies and Giant in the Playground, who are generally pretty tame.
I wonder how all the old grognards of rec.games.frp.dnd like Michael Scott Brown would be twitching over this.
Maybe they're trying to throw off the last vestiges of the old TSR company, as Gencon was their baby, IIRC.
But yeah, the D20 forum there is a cesspool dominated by a handful of vocal crazies.
Just go to Dragonsfoot
It's nice to be able to talk positively about 4e for once, instead of having to wade through the same old arguments time and time again.
Maybe they're trying to throw off the last vestiges of the old TSR company, as Gencon was their baby, IIRC.[/QUOTE]
Their official statement is that it has to do with the lawsuit between Gencon and Lucasarts, apparently. Wizkids games might be involved too.
On a mostly unrelated topic I remember reading about Rangers and being a little miffed, but I forget the source. Am I right in thinking that to be an effective Ranger now I'd really have to either go with a bow or dual-wield? Is there any room for a weapon-and-shield ranger in 4e? I always liked the concept of the Dwarf Ranger who patrols tunnels and caves rather than forests so I'd like to have him be able to track things, have heightened senses and favoured enemies but still fight with a shield or a two handed weapon. Think a Fighter with Ranger Training could make this concept work?
SoogaGames Blog
Hrm, it's hard to say there. The ranger as we understand either fights with two weapons or a bow. On the other hand, we don't know about shield bashing yet, so some of those ranger double attacks might be pretty cool for that dwarf. Otherwise you might be out of luck.
Also, it's possible that with just the first ranger feat and maybe some like, ranger feats that make hunter's quarry better(?) you'd get a cool character.
To be fair, the ranger in 3.x was even more restrictive. I remember hearing earlier that thrown weapons are going to be awesome now as well.
A dwarf who dual wields axes, and also throws axes at people would totally be doable.
If you want to be a Ranger who has things like Tide of Iron, multiclass into Fighter.
If you want to be a Fighter who uses two weapons, multiclass into Ranger.
Alternately, just play a Fighter who has the Ranger multiclass feat, since for all skillish purposes you're a Ranger.
Again I should stress that I'm picking up on these tiny things because on the whole I'm really getting exciting for 4e.
SoogaGames Blog
They still don't, which is nice.
The most exciting part of the multiclass rules, for me, is what it opens conceptually.
10 Level Fighter, has 6 feats, 2 at-will, 3 encounter, 3 daily, and 3 utility powers (according to the chart in the other article about starting a higher level guy).
So, say he uses his 2nd level feat for Arcana Initiate.
4th level, swaps 1 encounter power with another.
Again at 6th, uses 8th level feat to swap a utility power, and swaps a daily at 10th.
So, at 10th level, his powers look like this:
Fighter Exploits: 2 at-will, 1 encounter, 2 daily, and 2 utility.
Wizard Spells: 2 encounter, 1 daily, 1 utility.
That's pretty balanced, I think. If you're hardcore dedicated into being a spell-slinging warrior, there you go.
Plus, you can take Battle Mage at 11th.
I'm pretty sure rangers and two weapon fighting pre-date Drizzt but I have no evidence to back it up. I'm going to go scour the web so I can prove you wrong at a later time.
Kay?
1) It's not multi-classing, it's getting one other set of powers from one class. Technically, two classes are "multiples" of one class, but they're limiting all characters until the end of time to dual-classing basically.
2) I don't know if I appreciate the idea of paying twice to get one thing. It seems like, in their effort to make "multi-classed characters" less powerful, they made all of them shitty. Why be a fighter/mage when you can be a fighter, and have more feats? We all know that the game designers are, to some extent, trying to make all the classes similar in terms of balance, and from what I've seen, this is the case. Not a great deal separates the rogue from the fighter from the wizard from the cleric, at least in terms of damaging powers. So, you give up your damaging powers, to get... damaging powers from a different class and the ability to say "I'm a fighter/wizard... sort of!" and fewer feats? Geh.
Unless I'm missing something, this seems to be the case.
And I believe the Icewind Dale books may have been published before 2nd edition.
I could be wrong though.
I could imagine being a Fighter and going for Paladin tank powers, for example.
It's possible that one affected the other, but I'm going to give it the stink eye and doubt it.
o_O
The powers are geared towards the role those classes are for.
There are actually power advantages to combining powers from different roles if you're trying to go for one role.
For example, being a Fighter with Wizard training. Being able to use some of the Wizard's AoE immobilizing spells, on a tank? Pretty awesome, I think.
Having a highly mobile Striker class, like Warlock or Rogue, and the a handful of Cleric powers to heal and buff? I like it.
I think they've hit a good balance. Muticlassing is not really much more powerful than using those feats for, say, improving your class abilities and stuff. It's not for everybody, nor is it something that is always clearly advantageous.
But if you want to do it, and do it well, there's advantages.
If that's the case they must've done a really really poor job with their "role" ideas. Strikers do the most damage, period. It's their reason for being.
I don't see a problem with limiting multi-classing down to just dual-classing. As it is, characters will have plenty of sources for powers, be it racial, their primary class, a second class if they so choose, a paragon path and an epic destiny, not to mention magic items.
What it looks like to me is that their aim with the new multi-classing rules is to make it so they are useful and worth taking, especially if it fits your character concept, while limiting it so that say... a Fighter multiclassed into Wizard isn't so good at it that the Wizard is out of a job.
I have no beef with it.
Any kind of multiclass power choices should complement your chosen role. Trying to play a Cleric/Rogue as a Defender just isn't going to work. However, using the sneaky, dirty tricks of a Rogue to enhance your mobility and disable opponents while you chain buffs of them (making you a better Leader) is a good call.
If you want to play a Cleric/Rogue Striker, play a Rogue/Cleric instead.
Yeah.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that as with almost everything D&D, the Ranger class has its origins in something Tolkien.
(This is my excuse to get a blue dot on this thread)
I believe the prevailing thought is that the Ranger idea was modeled on Aragorn and his dudes. I don't remember anything specific about them fighting with two weapons.
Either way, it wasn't institutionalized into the game that rangers fought with two weapons until 2nd edition. I think.
Edit: and Aganazzer's scorcher.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
damn del you're always pulling shit like this out
it's weird and impressive at the same time
I'd overlooked the fact that the multiclass feat also lets you qualify for paragon paths from that class. I liked 4e's version of multiclassing before, but this makes it fantastic. It allows for a lot of different options, like a high defense Fighter that relies on Shadow Assassin's Riposte to wear his opponents down, or uses Warpriest's Challenge to make enemies waste their attacks on him.