Search results

This is not a role, it's two roles. That is my point. Why would you want to mix heavy armor and a light armor? What is the end purpose of the character?

Please give me an example. :)

He sure is a heavy defender, since that's his role. Lightly armored? No, he definitely wears heavy armor. Striker? No he's a defender, not a striker. You can only have one role.

Fighter, Rogue Multiclass feat. Big-Honkin-Weapon proficiency feat.

Tactical D&D is about resource management. Those recourses include Feats, class levels and (now) powers. In 3.5 you had 7 feats normally, plus bonus feats, etc. With 7 feats, they were very, very rare. In fact, you had 20 class levels to your 7 feats. Therefore, class levels were more easier to...

You've got it spot on.

That's never how I saw it. Let's take the Warlock, for example. My party hated the Warlock (in 3.5) because it was too draculaisk. I made a character that was the warlock class, but instead made him more Dragon-like (This was before Dragon Magic.) Flavor change without multiclassing.

This is a point of view debate, which isn't a debate. Being able to duel wield greatswords is a character trait. If you based your character on that trait and gave it more meaning, then that's your character.

I imagine that if you posted the classes and levels you gained them you'd get a lot of people telling you how wrong you are. :)

From my perspective, it wasn't the timing that ruined the post, but the people inside that cramped it with junk. I'd agree that one post early on would stop the competitive garbage of being first. :)

On the contrary, I love D&D because it has the rules for hard combat and mechanics that other systems tend to leave for the DM to figure out (I'm looking at you, BESM.) My issue isn't with the system: I love the tactics of picking your powers and abilities with caution. However, when it gets in...

My problems came from people who planned their levels, feats and abilities, exactly when they would switch alignments, exact knowledge of everything taught in all the books, to make a monster of a character who did things perfectly. If something went wrong, they had to start over. I've seen it...

Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.

Feats are less powerful in 4th, than in 3.5.

A play tester has corrected the improper grammar. Those feats should have the 4th, 8th, and 10th entries under Prerequisites, not benefits.

You are trading Specialization for Generalization. Remember: no body is forcing you to multiclass. :)

It's giving me something to do. I like going back and forth. When the pages are merged, I'm gonna have some posts that don't make any sense.

The main issue with multiclassing in 3.5 were balance. If I wanted to hit things as a warrior could I had to choose classes with BAB, even if they did not give me Sneak Attack, or did not give me spell casting, etc. Also, the fact that some builds were used so often because they were powerful...

Interesting. Isn't it enough to just put it in the back story, though?

You can only pick one skill from that class' skill list. You can only take the feat once. Theese feats have preqs.