D&D 4E Where was 4e headed before it was canned?

[Aldarc]

While I have seen quite a few full classes as well as sub classes. I think its way too easy to find ones which are not particularly good as well. Those who want something else seem quite confident in trying them out though.

There are undoubtedly a lot of full classes as well that have been made. The Gunslinger and Blood Hunter* were both part of Critical Role. Matt Colville made the "Illrigger" (a diabolic paladin) for one of his players on his campaign stream. There have been a number of Warlords, Artificers, Shamans, and other concepts (many seemingly anime-inspired) that fell through the cracks in published 5e materials.

* WTF is a Blood Hunter anyway? Was this a popular character concept that I had never noticed?

 

[Umbran]

A sonnet is a highly adaptable set of mechanics

As compared to, say, free verse, a sonnet is a straight-jacket.

Now, I personally happen to think character classes are pretty adaptable. But, some folks may be coming at this from the perspective of someone who really prefers (or would prefer) point-buy character generation, and to them, classes may seem like straight jackets.

My point, however, is that the class is not equivalent not the character concept, so being inspired by the class does not hand you the concept outright, any more than how the meter and rhyme scheme of a sonnet hands you the concept therein. The class, at most, is a seed of inspiration, by no means the whole.

 

[Tony Vargas]

WTF is a Blood Hunter anyway? Was this a popular character concept that I had never noticed?

Sounds like a Vampire PrC... or a Vyrolka racial feat... ;P

...or an Elite mosquito template...

 

[Aldarc]

Sounds like a Vampire PrC... or a Vyrolka racial feat... ;P

...or an Elite mosquito template...

I don't know but the SHEER IMPACT of Critical Role means that the Blood Hunter is listed on DnD Beyond slightly to the side of other official classes and the UA Artificer.

 

[Garthanos]

As compared to, say, free verse, a sonnet is a straight-jacket.

Now, I personally happen to think character classes are pretty adaptable.

It isn't entirely on and off though that is a false dichotomy.

Classes with choices like class features, and powers and certain kinds of feats are very adaptable within themselves. I came up with the princess/princeling build Warlord posted on here (which someone else basically simultaneously came up with calling a lazy lord and posted it on WOTC forums) It really demonstrates how adaptable classes can be. It is an example of how 5e threw away tons of adaptability in the form of power selection alone.

In theory having easy more organic multiclassing ought to bring alot of adaptability back it makes sense and maybe MCing takes more game fu with fifth edition to use well than I have. I mean it takes quite a bit to get hybrids in 4e to do their thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In theory having easy more organic multiclassing ought to bring alot of adaptability back it makes sense and maybe MCing takes more game fu with fifth edition to use well than I have.

3e-style MCing is an elegant solution to the thorny problem of class straightjacketing, but to really work well, each level of each class must be balanced with every other level of every other class. That is, if you treat class-levels as building blocks, you better make 'em cubes. Which, when D&D has rarely managed to even roughly balance any two classes in any one edition, is a really, really tall order. Bottom line: 3e style MCing works great, but the only class design it actually works great /with/ is the 3e fighter.

MCing in 4e when two very odd ways. There were the MCing feats, which essentially charged you feats for the privilege of learning powers that probably didn't synergize too well with your class features, and Hybriding, which, just, well, it wasn't as bad as Gestalts - I suppose it was a fairly balanced/playable take on classic D&D MCing. 4e probably could've handled something a lot closer to feat based MCing, just without so many feat taxes to do it. After the initial MC feat, just retrain powers in from that class with some simple stricture, like only one each of your EDU powers, and never your highest level power of that sort, and it uses your retraining for that level.

Would 4e have gone there given a chance to continue developing? I can't imagine why, unless there was some sort of dramatic Feat Purge Udpate to winnow away the chaff... and that'd've been a /change/ in direction.

 

[Garthanos]

My point, however, is that the class is not equivalent not the character concept, so being inspired by the class does not hand you the concept outright

Class has always been a huge component of character concept and yes it is hyperbolic to say it is the sum total. There are many things about a character the mechanics do not even express but none of those go away when the class is adaptable.

And sometimes abilities actually can express those things. My bloodwright mentioned earlier thinks of her allies as her children (certain of her powers actualy express that)

And I still think the sonnet analogy is terrible

 

[Tony Vargas]

Class has always been a huge component of character concept and yes it is hyperbolic to say it is the sum total.

Prettymuch was in some early eds. When race was a class, for instance. ;P

There are many things about a character the mechanics do not even express but none of those go away when the class is adaptable.

They don't go away when mechanics are used to express them, either, they just gain a foundation.

And I still think the sonnet analogy is terrible

Sonnet is still a
Terrible analogy
Haiku is better

 

[Garthanos]

Prettymuch was in some early eds. When race was a class, for instance. ;P

True.

They don't go away when mechanics are used to express them, either, they just gain a foundation.

Nods I suppose one could make a character and have them act like a Lazylord never attacking always doing an aide other in combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nods I suppose one could make a character and have them act like a Lazylord never attacking always doing an aide other in combat.

You could've done it in 1e, "just RPing it," without even Help or Aid Another or anything. Heck, Aid Another would've seemed like fantastic mechanical support for your concept, just in contrast to that - nevermind the possibility of playing a bard who never casts spells, that'd be /awesome/ by comparison.

...yeah, I guess, you have to read into any complaint of ".... can't do _________ concept..." the additional qualification of "...without being dead weight to the party..." because, technically, you can just do any concept in any system with absolutely no mechanical support for it - because it leaves you total freedom to do it exactly how you want.


:|