Races and Classes--I has it!

[Andor]

I don't think so, at least, I haven't read anything like that yet.

Nothing about multiclassing. But they've said that no feats will require a class as prerequisite. Remember that Trapfinding is now a feat (i.e. a previous class ability). And don't forget that all classes will have an unified BAB/saves progression

[pure speculation]
Okay, that's pure speculation now, but I get the vibe that it's their new approach to multiclassing, especially if you keep in mind, that all classes have an unified progression - what do you get by multiclassing, if not BAB/Saves. The individual powers/class abilities and access to certain feats, right?

If all feats are class-independent (remember the Golden Wyvern adept? It just talked about wizard powers - but didn't require you to be a wizard), and you can get class-specific stuff through the Class Training feats, why multiclass?

And considering the other evidence, it makes sense: Want to play a fighter/mage? Choose a fighter, start to pick up spells through feats, and get spell-modifying stuff through other feats (i.e. Golden Wyvern Adept).

Want to be a Warlock with roguish trap monkey bent? Pick up the Trapfinding feat, and perhaps stuff like Skill Focus.
[/pure speculation]

Cheers, LT.

Yeah. I'm getting that impression too. It's not that you can multi-class really, but you can kind of smear the border between your class and another one.

It's... odd.

One the one hand it seems to have an aspect of "Classes are similar enough that you don't need to actually take levels in another class to have some functional use of their powers." On the other hand they also seem to be saying that your role is so important that they are preventing you from screwing it up by diluteing your core focus too much. On the gripping hand... the gripping hand is still gropeing in the dark. More data is needed.

 

[eve_of_dante]

Definitely! I wonder if, in a few years, we'll be seeing an Immortals Handbook, for levels 30+, in which characters become demigods or other higher beings. Like the D&D box set, but without the wacky, math-heavy mechanics.

The book says 'your epic destiny describes your character's exit from the world and your campaign', which sounds more about closure than further adventure... at least for now...

 

[pawsplay]

The book says 'your epic destiny describes your character's exit from the world and your campaign', which sounds more about closure than further adventure... at least for now...

Unless they decide to republish... The Primal Order!!! dum dum dum!!!

 

[Deverash]

Unless they decide to republish... The Primal Order!!! dum dum dum!!!

Glad I'm not the only one who thought of that.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

I'm loving everything I'm hearing. I'm probably going to buy the book, based on what this thread and the other previews have said.

One the one hand it seems to have an aspect of "Classes are similar enough that you don't need to actually take levels in another class to have some functional use of their powers." On the other hand they also seem to be saying that your role is so important that they are preventing you from screwing it up by diluteing your core focus too much. On the gripping hand... the gripping hand is still gropeing in the dark. More data is needed.

It seems more like an elegant way to get rid of some of the bad parts of 3e multiclassing, while still allowing flexible character concepts.

Some of the things this fixes are:
- Multiclass spellcasters.
- Too easy to make useless weaklings because character concept requires a sub-optimal combination of classes. I once played with a druid/bard, who was a jack of a couple trades, master of nothing.
- In 3e, class balance was wonky, because what was ideal for a single class character could be broken in a multiclass. Often, it was perfectly reasonable for a 1st level character to get a bunch of bonus feats or abilities that are useful to him at 1st level, but which become horrendously broken as a "1 level dip".

Plus, the unified progress of all classes in 4e makes it somewhat pointless to mix and match "class levels" like in 3e. Just take some different powers or class options and be done with it.

In 4e, it seems like you gain the option of picking up some class abilities and powers, to blend together the abilities of the two classes. This will neccessarily affect the claracter's "role", because a defender who takes some controller powers isn't as a good a defender who takes only defender powers. But the foundation is good enough to make the character not terribly weak.

 

[KingCrab]

The first few pages are the design timeline... if after you reading this, you are not convinced that 4E is helmed by a stellar team and that the game will be the best edition to date, then nothing will convince you.

Um. The design team telling me about how stellar the design team is... that's not going to convince me of anything. I'll have to wait till I see some more of the actual mechanics before I'm going to be convinced of much.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

I love it. Thanks for promoting the book and thanks for the recaps while showing restraint in not doing the copy(scan) & paste spoiler.

I can imagine that you would love it. Finally some good press (and unsolicitated at that) from Joe Gamer (no offense) actually praising 4e after seeing some of the changes. I can't imagine why Mr. Rouse would object to this thread, given the beating 4E has taken in some quarters (including these very forums). This is THE perfect advertising IMHO.

Once again, I'm in the pro-4E camp as most everything I've read has been about 4e crunch indicates simplifying the game rules, something I favor. (Then again, I found AD&D was simpler in it's core than 3.x, and I liked 3.X better, go figure).

The fluff....well, I can be convinced. But the FR changes had better be REALLY good.

All in all, I'm looking forward to 4e.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

The book says 'your epic destiny describes your character's exit from the world and your campaign', which sounds more about closure than further adventure... at least for now...

That's what the Master set said too.

 

[Reaper Steve]

Reminds me of what was said about 1e - you go up to face 2 HD monsters after fighting orcs, then 3.

Though I sure hope that orcs and kobolds can be made viable foes once you're high enough to be fighting gnolls and trogs.

And if Paragon is when you're defending the kingdom, are you defending it from gnolls and trogs, because they're paragon level threats?

Orcs: the very next sentence states that orcs (and hobgobs) have "the flexibility to fight against adventurers from 1st to 10th level and even beyond."

Paragon level: many of D&D's "mightiest classic monsters--giants, demons and devils, beholders, mind flayers," ...

Oh yeah, rogues have a good bit of swashbuckler. I think it states something like: the ranger and the rogue split the swashbuckler's stuff. Point is, the rogue is supposed to get in there and mix it up.

As for where I got it... I live in Las Vegas and got it from a chain store in a mall. It was the only (or last?) copy. I don't want to be more specific because I don't want them to get in trouble (but I doubt WotC would care at this point.)

I'm looking forward to a party without elves, dwarves, and halflings. Not that there's anything wrong with any of them (and the 4E versions are very well done) but suddenly a party with a dragonborn warlord, tiefling warlock, and a couple humans sounds really cool, and REALLY D&D, without the usual suspects having to be present.

Sorry, busy night. I'll see what other tidbits I can offer tomorrow.

 

[Mercule]

That's what the Master set said too.

I was going to say "36 used to be the end," but it's the same basic idea.

Odd thought: I'm betting that 14-year-old me, flipping through the Immortals box, asking my folks, "Hey, who's 'Old Nick,' anyway? These stats read like that name should mean something to me," went a long way toward assuaging their concerns about the link between D&D and the occult.