Player's Strategy Guide & Multi-class Rules FAQ

39 posts / 0 new
Last post

I don't have the exact reference due to being at work, but hopefully someone else can provide it. My question is this:

The Players Strategy Guide in the Multi-class section has a FAQ column. Two of the rules directly contradict my knowledge and several other posts I've seen. I am wondering, is this intended to change the game rules in question, a mistake or am I simply missing something?

Rule 1) Taking a multi-class feat gives you the ROLE of the multi-class feat as well. For example, a cleric taking multi-class fighter would give you the defender role. 

<---  My understanding is up until the PSG, a MC feat counted you as that CLASS for pre-req purposes, but not the role. So the cleric could take fighter paragons, but not defender paragons. 

Rule 2) Taking a multi-class feat gives you the implements for ALL your classes. For example, a cleric taking a swordmage multi-class could then use a dagger +3 for cleric implement powers.

<--- My understanding us up until the PSG, a MC feat only gave you the ability to use the MC implements for MC powers. So you could use a dagger +3 for the swordmage powers you gained, but could not use it for your original cleric powers.

Both of these FAQ answers in the PSG drastically change the effect of a MC feat and could radically change many builds. Mostly for providing implement usage, but there are some role based paragons as well.

(I haven't asked CS, because they will respond with RAW in the PSG, which contradicts previous interpretations and RAW, which isn't helpful to my question) 

I'm unsure on the first, I've always allowed it in my games.  As to the second it's most definitely incorrect.

Always a GM, never a player (not really but sometimes feels like it).

Hex Grid UserPopcorn InitiativeAndroid UserD&DMapTools

DungeonScape

In the section on "How to never miss", they also tell you to steer clear of attack powers that have the Reliable keyword or Miss/Effect lines.  Ummm....ALL daily attack powers have one of those three (AFAIK).
You are correct, OP, both of these directly contradict previously published rules.

In the PHB FAQ, it states that taking a MC feat does not give you the role.  I forget the source on the second, but I am 100% sure that it's wrong; a MC feat only lets you use the MC'd implements on the MC'd powers.
The difference between madness and genius is determined only by degrees of success.
The first is contradicted by the PHB FAQ, and the second by the FRPG FAQ:

33. Does taking a fighter multiclass feat qualify you for feats and paragon paths that require the defender role?



No, you do not gain the role of the class that you multiclass into.





2. The update for the Swordmage multiclass feat Blade Initiate adds the words “In addition, you can use swordmage implements” to the end of the feat. Does this mean I can use a light blade or a heavy blade as an implement for any implement attack even non swordmage powers?



Ability to use the implements of a class (“You can use swordmage implements”) means that you can use them in the same way that the class uses them. For instance, ability to use swordmage implements means you can use swordmage implements with swordmage powers. You don’t gain the ability to use those implements with powers of another class.



Clearly, a good strategy is to cheat
You are correct, OP, both of these directly contradict previously published rules.

The question is, though:  Is this a mistake, or some kind of "stealth update"?

Stealth updates in new books have happened in the past; one non-controversial example is this:

PH 208: "A character who has taken a class-specific multiclass feat counts as a member of that class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites for taking other feats and qualifying for paragon paths."

PH2 196: "If you take a class-specific multiclass feat, you count as a member of that class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, including prerequisites for feats, paragon paths, epic destinies, and rituals."

It may simply reflect upcoming errata, in which case it isn't really a stealth update, just out of sync with the errata cycle.
The actual text, now that I have it

Q: When my character takes a multiclass feat for a class of a different role than my primary class, do I qualify as a character of that secondary role for the purpose of meeting prerequisites?
A: Yes. A githzerai cleric who takes a swordmage multiclass feat could, for example, select marked With Iron feat (which requires the defender role).

Q: When a multiclass feat states "you can use (class name) implements," does that mean I can use those implements with powers of my primary class?
A: Yes. If you are proficient with an implement, you may use it with implement powers fo any class, even if that class doesn't normally use that implement.

Source: Players Strategy Guide, right column, page 57 
Wow, thats a MAJOR change in the way implements work. If thats the way its supposed to work, then why didnt that change occur in the May errata? This book was at the publishers by then.
Wow, thats a MAJOR change in the way implements work. If thats the way its supposed to work, then why didnt that change occur in the May errata? This book was at the publishers by then.



Agreed. I've sent the information in the FAQ and PHB along with the opposite rules from the PSG to CS. We'll see what I get as a response...


Rule 2) Taking a multi-class feat gives you the implements for ALL your classes. For example, a cleric taking a swordmage multi-class could then use a dagger +3 for cleric implement powers.

<--- My understanding us up until the PSG, a MC feat only gave you the ability to use the MC implements for MC powers. So you could use a dagger +3 for the swordmage powers you gained, but could not use it for your original cleric powers. 



It depends on the multiclass feat, but occasionally that is not true.  Divine channeller at least does not give you proficiency in the class' implements and there might be one or two others that also do not grant proficiency, but the vast majority of other multiclass feats do.

Wow, thats a MAJOR change in the way implements work. If thats the way its supposed to work, then why didnt that change occur in the May errata? This book was at the publishers by then.



That eliminates the usefulness of about half the items in my dual purpose implements guide if they make this change.  I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing and it helps implement users a lot and makes them less dependent on specific items, but a whole lot of items from the two adventureres vaults just became useless if this is the case.
True, but that just shows how bad the implement rules are.

If this holds true...and they let Dilettante use any implement you are proficient with...that would go a long way towards fixing things.


Q: When a multiclass feat states "you can use (class name) implements," does that mean I can use those implements with powers of my primary class?
A: Yes. If you are proficient with an implement, you may use it with implement powers fo any class, even if that class doesn't normally use that implement.

 


Hmm, while the answer doesn't directly state it, that also means you'd be able to use implements from your primary class with powers from any other class- including Dilettante powers from a class you haven't MCed into and powers you've picked up through Eternal Seeker.  That really does level the playing field between weapon users and implement users as far as picking up powers from other classes goes.  It also means that any implement user can get weaplements by MCing swordmage, sorcerer, assassin, or monk; it should be hard for an implement user to qualify for at least one of those feats.  It makes Hybrid implement users less special, of course, but honestly MC implement users have had too hard a time of things in comparison to weapon users.

It does seem a really odd place for a rules update, especially considering how recent the last wave of errata was.
Thank you for reporting this problem. We appreciate your help in improving our product.

 


We will submit your issue to our developers for review. I can not guarantee any further follow up with you about this bug but we may contact you for further information.




Well, for what it's worth, this was the response.

So I guess we wait for the dev's... 
The reply when I asked yesterday was "the online FAQ is right, the book is wrong" (paraphrased).  So hey, "we'll ask the devs" is still movement.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Man, I hope not.
The Implement proficiency rules are far-and-away the worst functioning set of rules left in the system.

Still, I dont put any stock in WotC actually having fixed them.
Q: When a multiclass feat states "you can use (class name) implements," does that mean I can use those implements with powers of my primary class?
A: Yes. If you are proficient with an implement, you may use it with implement powers fo any class, even if that class doesn't normally use that implement.

I suppose it's still too early to ask if you got a response yet, Phylosfr?

I certainly wouldn't be opposed if they officially update the rules in this way.  It would certainly be a gameplay convenience.  Implement juggling is currently a pretty annoying element of the game.
No such luck. I ended up starting my character NOT using the rules in the Player Strategy Guide, since it seems so strange to change rules there.

I can hope they change it later for some of my existing characters who have spent feats on Arcane Implements and such needlessly, but until then I'm guessing the PSG is wrong. 
Indeed a majore update and an interesting one at that!

I envision a cleric multiclassing Swordmage (bad idea, but nevermind that) so to be able to use the longsword +3 he's wielding for all his holy symbol powers thereby negating the need for a magical holy simbol.
Or a shaman using a MC feat to use an implement that makes more sense than a totem.

Definitely interesting if not overly powerful.

M.
"If you are proficient with an implement"? Hmm... seems to be a very bud choice of word.

A character is either proficient or not with a weapon/armor/shield. But the word "proficient" is never used for implement in the core rule.

This once again begs the question of whether half-elves can add implement bonuses to their dilettante powers.  I've searched around the boards, but I haven't seen a definitive answer one way or the other. Other than the PSG, the latest word on the matter comes from page 219 of PH3:

"If a power, like one from a racial paragon path, has [the implement] keyword but isn't associated with a class or a class paragon path, you can use any implement with that power, as long as you're able to wield the implement."

This doesn't answer the question once and for all, but it seems to suggest that half-elves can add their implement bonuses to dilettante powers. Although the power is chosen from another class, it's not "associated" with the class—it's associated with your race, since a racial trait allows you to use the power. It's essentially a racial power, and the sentence I quoted above says that you can use any implement with "racial" powers.
Gamma World Origins Half-Sheets: Horizontal (FiFG) Vertical (GW) FiFG coming soon

It says racial paragon path, not racial power.  And when you choose a Dilettante power, it is associated with a specific class, it doesn't become a racial power.  You must use that class's implements with it as usual.

The lack of a rule for Dilettante means the power functions in the normal way.  Not that there is ambiguity about it.


It says racial paragon path, not racial power.  And when you choose a Dilettante power, it is associated with a specific class, it doesn't become a racial power.  You must use that class's implements with it as usual.

The lack of a rule for Dilettante means the power functions in the normal way.  Not that there is ambiguity about it.




No, it says, "...like one from a racial paragon path..." (emphasis added).  That's just an example.

You still have to decide if it applies or not. 

Right, I was just pointing out that the example wasn't refering to a racial power, so he shouldn't try to make a connection between the word racial and racial powers.

However, it's really irrelevent because the rule just doesn't apply:  The dilettante power is associated with a class.
However, it's really irrelevent because the rule just doesn't apply:  The dilettante power is associated with a class.

That's an opinion.  The reason half-elves can use the power has nothing to do with their class. It has to do with their race.  A half-elf swordmage with magic missile isn't a wizard, doesn't qualify for anything as a wizard, doesn't get any wizard class features, implements, etc.

IMO, a power gained through Dilettante is not "associated" with a class or a class paragon path, because one you choose it, the power becomes wholly independent from its class.

Gamma World Origins Half-Sheets: Horizontal (FiFG) Vertical (GW) FiFG coming soon
However, it's really irrelevent because the rule just doesn't apply:  The dilettante power is associated with a class.


That's an opinion.  The reason half-elves can use the power has nothing to do with their class. It has to do with their race.  A half-elf swordmage with magic missile isn't a wizard, doesn't qualify for anything as a wizard, doesn't get any wizard class features, implements, etc.

IMO, a power gained through Dilettante is not "associated" with a class or a class paragon path, because one you choose it, the power becomes wholly independent from its class.



It doesn't matter that the half-elf didn't get it from a class; the power itself is still associated with a class.  If a half elf whose Dilettante power is Tide of Iron grabs Reckless Attacker (which triggers only on fighter powers), he'll be able to trigger it with Tide of Iron- because Tide of Iron is still a Fighter power, regardless of the method someone uses to get the power.
IMO, a power gained through Dilettante is not "associated" with a class or a class paragon path, because one you choose it, the power becomes wholly independent from its class.


For that to be the case, the Dilettante power would have to specifically state it is the case.  Since it doesn't, it remains a class power for its class.

In other words: Show me the rule that says it works the way you are claiming instead of the default way.
IMO, a power gained through Dilettante is not "associated" with a class or a class paragon path, because one you choose it, the power becomes wholly independent from its class.



For that to be the case, the Dilettante power would have to specifically state it is the case.  Since it doesn't, it remains a class power for its class.

In other words: Show me the rule that says it works the way you are claiming instead of the default way.

The Multiclass and Hybrid FAQ sidebar in the PSG.  If it was so wrong, if it was such an oversight, how difficult would it be for WotC to put out a blog post, or a news update?  It does contradict previous rules, but the people who wrote those rules are all gone.  I agree with some of the previous posters that it is indeed a "stealth" update. As far as I'm concerned, it's gospel until I see something official that says it's not.

Plus, show me the rule that explains what the word "associated" means.  The power itself may be "associated" with a class, but the reason you have it is "associated" with your race. I feel like your argument requires as much inference as mine does. 

The pushback I'm seeing means that my OP was right: we have not gotten a definitive answer on this.  If so, someone would have linked the FAQ entry or the CS response by now. I'm not in the mood to get into a back-and-forth on this. Either it's something that's been directly spelled out somewhere, or it's something that needs to be addressed. I've got a published book on my side.
Gamma World Origins Half-Sheets: Horizontal (FiFG) Vertical (GW) FiFG coming soon
If it was so wrong, if it was such an oversight, how difficult would it be for WotC to put out a blog post, or a news update?


Such an update is due with the scheduled July rules update.  As you said, it's likely a good idea to table this discussion until we receive an official resolution to this contradiciton between rules sources.

Returned from hiatus; getting up to speed on 5e rules lawyering.




The Multiclass and Hybrid FAQ sidebar in the PSG.  If it was so wrong, if it was such an oversight, how difficult would it be for WotC to put out a blog post, or a news update?  It does contradict previous rules, but the people who wrote those rules are all gone.  I agree with some of the previous posters that it is indeed a "stealth" update. As far as I'm concerned, it's  gospel until I see something official that says it's not.

Plus, show me the rule that explains what the word "associated" means.  The power itself may be "associated" with a class, but the reason you have it is "associated" with your race. I feel like your argument requires as much inference as mine does. 

The pushback I'm seeing means that my OP was right: we have not gotten a definitive answer on this.  If so, someone would have linked the FAQ entry or the CS response by now. I'm not in the mood to get into a back-and-forth on this. Either it's something that's been directly spelled out somewhere, or it's something that needs to be addressed. I've got a published book on my side.


This seems like exactly the same thing that happened when the sorcerer essentials article came out in Dragon 381. The author of the article outright stated that you can benefit from the power of a magic weapon (say the mordant weapon) used as an implement, when this was a direct contradiction to the current ruling as the phb faq specifically disallowed such a thing. As such, such a ruling or interpretation was deemed unofficial until the march update and the release of the phb3 which changed the rules concerning said issue. 

My personal opinion is though, since hybrids get to use either of their implements for either of their classes (example a warlock/cleric using a holy symbol for warlock powers or vice versa) without a feat or the like,  it isn't that much of a stretch to allow such a thing with non-hybrids at essentially the cost of a single multiclass feat. We'll see if its addressed in the new update hopefully.
The author of the article outright stated that you can benefit from the power of a magic weapon (say the mordant weapon) used as an implement, when this was a direct contradiction to the current ruling as the phb faq specifically disallowed such a thing.


The PHB FAQ never specifically disallowed it; it didn't mention powers which some people interpretted as disallowing their use, but it never specifically did so.  The general rules on item powers from the PHB always allowed it.
The Multiclass and Hybrid FAQ sidebar in the PSG.


The PSG had an errata for Dilettante?

Certainly if a Half-elf took a MC feat, and the PSG rule change was considered to be valid, that half-elf could then use his new implement from the MC feat with his Dilettante power, because he is able to use the with any class.  Assuming that the PSG is not in error, given it contradicts the existing rules and it's a sidebar.

But either way, a half-elf cannot use an implement from his initial class with his Dilettante power from another class.  And either way the PHB3 rule from page 219 doesn't apply, because the power chosen is associated with its original class.
... And either way the PHB3 rule from page 219 doesn't apply, because the power chosen is associated with its original class.



That's arguable.  The power comes form the class, sure, but is it really "associated" with that class any more?  Maybe, maybe not.
That's arguable.  The power comes form the class, sure, but is it really "associated" with that class any more?  Maybe, maybe not.



Definitely.  Does Dilettante say it is no longer associated with that class?  Like I said, show me the rule that Dilettante stops the power from being associated with the class it is chosen from.  If there isn't a rule saying so, then it still is.
That's arguable.  The power comes form the class, sure, but is it really "associated" with that class any more?  Maybe, maybe not.




Definitely.  Does Dilettante say it is no longer associated with that class?  Like I said, show me the rule that Dilettante stops the power from being associated with the class it is chosen from.  If there isn't a rule saying so, then it still is.



No, not "definately" as there is no definition of "associated with the class."

Certainly one does not become a member of the at class in any sense.

Dilettante: At 1st level, you choose a 1st-level at-will attack power from a class different from yours. You can use that power as an encounter power.

So it could go either way.  Eventually we will, perhaps, get clarification on this from WotC.  Until then, one could rule either way and certainly be following RAW.
No, not "definately" as there is no definition of "associated with the class."

Does it have the class name in the power?  Yes.  Does Dilettante say it is no longer a power from that class?  No.

As I said, definitely still associated with the class.

No, not "definately" as there is no definition of "associated with the class."


Does it have the class name in the power?  Yes.  Does Dilettante say it is no longer a power from that class?  No.

As I said, definitely still associated with the class.



Does having the class name in the power mean that the power is associated with the class?  That's probably what they meant, but not necessarily.

For another example, if I'm an adroit explorer, does my Ambitious Effort power count as "associated" with its orginal class or with the paragon path?  You'd probably say the original class, but here the PSG statement has a stronger case for applying.
No, not "definately" as there is no definition of "associated with the class."

Does it have the class name in the power?  Yes.  Does Dilettante say it is no longer a power from that class?  No.

As I said, definitely still associated with the class.

Does having the class name in the power mean that the power is associated with the class?  That's probably what they meant, but not necessarily.

Exactly my point. It hasn't been defined either way, so either a clarification or errata is needed. 

Furthermore, although the PSG doesn't explicitly contain a update to Dilettante, the sidebar in question basically says that you can use any implement with which you're proficient with any one of your powers. That would apply to Dilettante as well. Fitz, your arguments make logical sense, but you still can't get around the fact that the latest expression of the rule, in a printed book, contradicts your interpretation. You can argue that it should be wrong, but you're going to need actual evidence to prove that it is wrong.

Gamma World Origins Half-Sheets: Horizontal (FiFG) Vertical (GW) FiFG coming soon