A few comments from a playtester

[Rechan]

This isn't an argument that can be won. Agree to disagree already.

Aye; it's a matter of personal taste and play style. No one will win.

If you'll notice, there's been very little argument about the matter of balance.

 

[Leatherhead]

Can we please just have an adult debate on whether it is mechanically balanced or not and drop this fluff debate?

Nope, balance is more or less a myth. A thing such as multi-classing cannot be balanced in the truest sense of the word, as sometimes it will be more advantageous to have a fireball and sometimes it will be more advantageous to have "deadly blow" (or whatever the equivalent level fighter power is). It is just not strictly possible to make all things equally good all the time.

Previously, people decided a 50/50 split of class powers was balanced, but that tend to make a character that under performs in either situation where you would expect the original classes to do well in. Another idea is a 75% of and 75% of B type balance. But one could argue that is not quite fair to single class characters, as you can just get rid of the "useless", under performing, or nonsynergising abilities from both classes to make something that is effectively better than either of them most of the time.

This brings another issue that could show up: Trading in a fighter power for a wizard power sounds like it could be profitable, but how will that allow the fighter to do his job when he is lacking a valuable daily fighter power? Or will giving him a wizard power suddenly make him better at his job than a normal fighter? Are the fighter exploits nonessential for them to do the job of a defender? If so what does that mean for the Defender role and fighter design as a whole?




Or are you implying that debating fluff is not adult behavior? I can't tell with text sometimes.

Edited for a bit of clarity.

 

[Mallus]

Is everyone in your world that fantastically talented? Is anyone? Ever?

Protagonists frequently are.

 

[Kaodi]

In the right context, I would say fluff is extremely important. This is not the right context.

Absolute balance is probably not possible in any game, but there is a range of " acceptable balance " . Especially, when you look at it from the view that it is not strictly necessary to have a defender at all (or any role), then it really is not so problematic if your defender has a controller power.

As for why they can do that, it is so that people can play concepts that otherwise do not fit the limited powers of a single class.

With multiclassing, you can pull off something like Eric Noah's Bastion of Faith campaign, where virtually everyone was part cleric. Alternatively, some might want to have a Thieves' Guild type game, where all five characters have the Rogue class, but one is a Rogue, one is a Rogue/Fighter, one is a Rogue/Ranger, one is a Rogue/Cleric and one is a Rogue/Warlock.

In any case, if you want to have consistently good campaigns, you have to be willing to adjust the game for the characters you have instead of the " strictly average " party you don't. Which is not to say that you never throw something at the party that they aren't really equipped to handle efficiently, but you don't expect them to choose their characters just to handle the things you want to throw at them either.

 

[Blackeagle]

We are honourable men. Hyperbole does not become us.

Heh!

How is spending a feat in order to be able to cast a single spell equivalent to somehow succeeding at EVERYTHING whenever you want to?

Spending a feat and giving up a fighter power of equivalent level.

 

[Hussar]

They mainly interfere with my sense of realism and consistency (and, apparently, those of some other posters, as well). Now, I doubt that most DMs let the PCs multiclass "instantly" into Barbarian, Wizard, Cleric or Paladin, but I may be wrong -- in my experience the PC usually has to undertake at least some sort of "training period". Of course, I can only speak for myself and my group (and some other groups I know, as well).

Well, this boils down to something neither of us can prove conclusively. However, I would point out that there are 150 000 RPGA gamers out there that do not in the slightest undertake any sort of "training period". So, unlike you, I can speak for more than just my group.

So, basically, you are complaining because the new rules don't line up with your house rules, despite the fact that you have no evidence that anyone other than your circle of friends uses those house rules. And, based on that, you've decided that the new rules suck.

I find it strange that so many people equate "I don't like this" with "This is bad".

I haven't bought all the explanations, because they just don't make sense to me -- and I think I've presented counterarguments why I think that way. So far I haven't seen a *really* plausible explanation for, say, the Warlord's powers.

Of course, you and your players determine what is "plausible" or "logical" or "realistic" and what is not -- some groups won't probably even bother with them. I do, and all the DMs I personally know (and consequently, their players too) share this same concern that 4E breaks our sense of disbelief and immersion if we can't come up with logical (simulationist) explanations for that stuff.

And that's perfectly legitimate. As such, I would say that 4e is likely not for you. And that's fine. There's nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, again, just because you cannot come up with a plausible explanation that satsifies your sense of verisimilitude, does not make the rules bad or faulty. Just not a good fit for you.

Again, you are simply trying to claim that your personal preferences are somehow the key issue. They are only key for you and your group. The fact that several people in this thread alone have come up with explanations that work for them shows that it can be done. Maybe it can't be done for you, but, in the end, that's pretty irrelevant. I don't assume a game is being designed with me in mind. I don't have a big bag of expectations that must be fufilled. Much better in my mind to start from a position of open mindedness and judge the game based on itself, not on what I think it should be.

Heck, 99% of the edition wars on this board alone would die an instant death if people would just remember that fact.

 

[Noinarap]

I was only there because ENworld was down, and Paizo is dead when it comes to 4e. But seriously, did you guys read the thread that was linked in the thread that I linked? The one by Psycho_Robot or something. I mean, I can have a bit of edge when I post at times, but his posts are seriously [censored] up. I really hope his parents take away his computer access and give the kids his meds....

The OP of that thread was one of the lowest things I've read. And I used to hang out at Fark and the WoW boards.

We can't seem to get the trolls banned over there. That one guy has been through a few accounts, but everyone knows who he is and he's still around. Sad times.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Seriously. I've been reading this thread off and on for a while.
By off and on, I mean I keep checking the last page... and saying "Nope, they're still talking about fighters multiclassing to wizards."

This isn't an argument that can be won. Agree to disagree already.

I'm inclined to agree.

If anyone wants to continue discussing the ins and outs of fighters multiclassing into wizards, please start a new thread for that purpose, don't continue the discussion in here.

Also, please don't diss other forums, regardless of your experiences there. We don't think it is polite and prefer for it not to take place here.

Thanks