D&D 4E The Twelve Days of Th4enksgiving

I'm going to strongly disagree here.

4e's multiclassing is a mess. The entry feats are all over the map in terms of power level and effectiveness. Many PCs take a multiclassing feat just because it's a skill training plus, and that is bad game design. (There shouldn't be feats that are simply better than other feats.)

Also, feats are far too precious a commodity to expend on power-swapping. And also, the power system is sufficienctly wonky that some power-swaps are no brainers and others are terrible ideas.

So no, 4e's feat-based multiclassing is not something I am thankful for.

(I'm also going to be completely iconoclastic and state that I don't think multiclassing of any sort should even exist, but that's a completely different discussion.)

Joshua Randall said:

4e's multiclassing is a mess.

Click to expand...

I think Winston Churchill's quote about democracy also applies here.

9. Marking

The introduction of the 4e marking mechanic gave monsters a reason to attack a heavily-armored defender instead of a comparatively frailer character. Not only would it take a penalty to its attack rolls, the character marking the monster would usually also have some other way to punish it if he was ignored.

However, what I really like about the marking mechanic is that the decision on who to attack lies ultimately with the marked creature. It is not a case of mind control. The marked creature can, if it chooses, attack another character and suffer the consequences. I think this is a design philosophy that could be applied to more conditions. For example, maybe creatures could choose between being knocked prone and remaning standing but taking extra damage due to the effort of resisting the blow (and a creature that cannot be knocked prone always takes the extra damage).

So, thank you, 4e, for marking.

Joshua Randall said:

The entry feats are all over the map in terms of power level and effectiveness.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you needed the qualifier "entry" there.

Many PCs take a multiclassing feat just because it's a skill training plus, and that is bad game design.

Click to expand...

Eh; skill training is insufficiently good to spend a feat on, so the problem is often the other direction.

(There shouldn't be feats that are simply better than other feats.)

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily best. And multiclass are hardly alone *eyes Expertise and Superior / Improved Defense feats*

It's certainly one possible option, but you could easily say that every PC gets a single "Focused Feat" and that focused feat is cooler than all others. Whether it's a multiclass, racial, thematic, expertise or whatever. As long as everyone gets that one option, it would work. It's not what we have, but multiclass feats are _almost_ there.

Multiclassing in 4E is a bit whiff. So, for that matter, is multiclassing in every previous edition. 3E's is the version that makes the most sense, but even then, it's fraught with problems stemming from fundamental imbalance between classes and their levels. As for previous editions, I understand tax law better than I understand the rationale behind how dual-classing works. I shall not speak of it.

But there is the germ of a good idea in there, in that if you pick up an ability from another class, it should be as potent as you are. You get an ability from any level if you multiclass into a class in 4E, up to your own - instead of getting a benefit appropriate to first level, which is not exactly an even trade.

"Hmmm, I get a fighter feat if I multiclass into fighter at level 18. Yes, that is totally equitable to my wizard ability to stop time if I choose wizard 18 instead." In theory, 3E multiclassing was balanced; in practice, it was discouraged and patched over with prestige classes like the mystic theurge and the eldritch knight. I'm not saying that 4E's take is better - spend a feat so that I can have the same number of powers and suck at using the new one? Who could possibly turn this down? - but I can sympathize with its notion that you should get a benefit appropriate to your level from it.

I don't think that a good multiclassing solution exists in any edition of D&D. If Next wants to include multiclassing, I'd like some 100% new ideas on it. Bringing in so many new ideas and making so many tasty hamburgers out of sacred cows, are what I'm thankful for from 4E.

I guess one more advantage to feat-based multiclassing is that it can exist in addition to other approaches to multiclassing, whether it's the 1e/2e/4e hybrid class "averaging" approach, or the 3e "add a level" approach. In fact, I've previously expressed the opinion that having a feat-based multiclassing system as a prerequisite to the "add a level" approach may go some way towards cutting down the front-loaded nature of that mechanic. For example, if you are required to pick up one or two multiclassing feats that already grant you some of the abilities of another class before you can take your first level in it, then the marginal benefit of taking that level will not be so great.

10. Themes

Themes are perhaps one of the most popular of the new mechanics introduced by 4e.

For those who care about it, there is usually a strong link between the flavor of the theme and the mechanics of the benefits it provides. As originally envisaged, themes also had fairly low power creep. Apart from the initial benefit that it provided (and even that could be balanced out by a house rule requiring the character to pay a feat to gain that ability), the character could only gain additional abilities from the theme by swapping out powers from his class.

For a while, I entertained the possibility that future versions of D&D could make all character defining options (such as race and class) into themes. The racial utility powers introduced in Dragon magazine and products such as Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Feywild seemed to be a step in this direction.

Under this approach, themes would provide no automatic abilities, but would broaden the characters' choices of abilities to select. Assuming a standard character starts with three themes, you could choose to be a Dwarf Fighter Noble, and choose your first-level abilities from the choices provided by the Dwarf, Fighter and Noble themes. Multiclassing would be represented by doubling up on class themes, so you could have an Elf Fighter Wizard selecting first-level abilities from the Elf, Fighter and Wizard themes. The complexity of the character could thus be raised or lowered by adding more themes or using less themes, but more complex characters with more themes would not get more abilities (just more choices) and would still be fairly well balanced with characters that have fewer themes. While it appears that 5e will not be designed in this manner, it was an entertaining line of speculation.

So, thank you, 4e, for themes.

11. Encounter Powers

I wonder if a lot of the confusion over encounter powers could have been avoided if they had been named "short rest" powers instead, to make it clearer that they are regained at the end of a short rest, and not at the start of every encounter.

In my view, encounter powers are a major contributing factor to the tactical richness of 4e. Unlike daily powers, you could reasonably count on being able to use them again after just a short rest, so you could build plans and contingencies based on them. Unlike at-will powers, you can't keep using them, so what you do next could change depending on whether you hit or miss (or, in the case of a multi-attack power, how many targets you hit).

Some encounter powers are also more effective in certain situations; a failry simple example would be Close and Area attacks which are more effective if they can affect more enemies. Deciding when an encounter power would be best utilized can be an interesting decision for the user, and creating the conditions which favor the use of the power can also be an interesting mini-challenge for the user and his allies.

So, thank you, 4e, for encounter powers.

... Aaaaaand we're back, for the final installment. Hope it was worth the wait.


12. The Warlord

In a way, the warlord class embodies several of the changes introduced by 4e. It is strongly associated with non-magical hit point recovery, which, together with its ability to grant additional movement, attacks, saving throws and actions, as well as other bonuses, push the boundaries of what can be accomplished with martial power.

Thematically, the warlord fills a niche which I think has been under-represented in the game thus far: the inspirational commander and the cunning tactician. Mechanically, the warlord also has access to a number of abilities which I found to be innovative and interesting, such as commander's strike and provoke overextension (the latter, in particular, is a personal favorite because of how well it synergizes with a defender ally).


So, thank you, 4e, for the warlord.

FireLance said:

9. Marking

The introduction of the 4e marking mechanic gave monsters a reason to attack a heavily-armored defender instead of a comparatively frailer character. Not only would it take a penalty to its attack rolls, the character marking the monster would usually also have some other way to punish it if he was ignored.

However, what I really like about the marking mechanic is that the decision on who to attack lies ultimately with the marked creature. It is not a case of mind control. The marked creature can, if it chooses, attack another character and suffer the consequences. I think this is a design philosophy that could be applied to more conditions. For example, maybe creatures could choose between being knocked prone and remaning standing but taking extra damage due to the effort of resisting the blow (and a creature that cannot be knocked prone always takes the extra damage).

So, thank you, 4e, for marking.

Click to expand...

Out of everything this is the one thing that I feel NEXT is most hurt by doing away with.