Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arlough" data-source="post: 5928487" data-attributes="member: 79335">You ain't whistlin' Dixie.  :-DI'm with you there. The Sorcerer in 3.X was too somewhat-wizard.  The Sorcerer in 4e was initially too powerful, and depending on what build you chose, too specifically designed for a certain build, or too much random crap to keep track of with no real value-add.The 4e Warlock (I never played the 3.X version, so I can't comment) has a nice built in premise, but that was all fluff.  The Fey Warlock was, initially, a much better controller than the Wizard (who was really just an area striker) and had the blast stuff, but his extra blast mechanic as somewhere between weird and cumbersome.  OTOH, that combo of Striker/Controller made him feel, to me, more like a sorcerer than the sorcerer ever really did.Now, the premise of a Warlock would make a great backdrop for one of those fighter-mages...I must admit, I liked that 4e pulled the demi-classes out of the extremes and made them viable, not-too-week/not-too-powerful classes.  Even if the execution of some hampered their playability.Whenever I think of a good fighter-mage, I always find myself looking a Jedi.Not Lucas's poorly written ones, but, for example, the Jedi in the book Revenge of the Sith and the Mace Windu found in the Clone Wars on Wartoon Network (animated, not CGI).I would be content if they dropped solos and replaced them with either the <a href="http://angrydm.com/category/features/for-dungeon-masters/the-boss-fight/" target="_blank">Angry DM's Boss Fights</a>, or <a href="http://at-will.omnivangelist.net/2010/04/1511/" target="_blank">At-Will's Worldbreakers</a>, or both.And as for minions, I liked the concept of the orc that stepped in a gofer hole and went down, or the goblin that zigged when he should have zagged, but I didn't really feel that the minons as written expressed this.  And, since if you had a wizard in your party they would just die immediately, they weren't good for adding tension, either.So, again, conceptually good, executionally not as good.So I made a rule where I took a regular monster, made it worth 1/3 XP; gave it HP, THP, and vulnerability-to-hits equal to its bloodied value.  I called them minionized monster.  This way a player could take it down in one hit, if they did its bloodied value in damage, but they would certainly take it down in two.  Also, there was no way for the players to go "It's doing flat damage, it must be a minion." and I decided that they registered on Nature-dar (or whichever monster knowledge check was made) the exact same as the monster they were crafted from.Again, I liked the concept that you are still your base class, but that you can pick up skills from another class, but I didn't like the execution.A feat and a power swap is costly, especially since you aren't getting the class features that would make that power good.Paragon Multiclassing, 4 feats, 4 power swaps, and you sacrifice your Paragon Path, and you swap an at will, and you don't get any lvl 11 or 16 features?!?!?  Completely ludicrous.  I only ever managed to make one build in which Paragon Multi-Classing was advantageous. (Ultra battlefield controllery Fighter w/ Invoker Multiclass) Not that it was better than other options, even, simply that its benefits were worth the costs.Finally, I agree on getting rid of all the wannabes.  I didn't like that the Druid was a somewhat Cleric, the Bard (3.X) was a somewhat rogue, somewhat fighter, and somewhat mage, and was bad at all three.  Either make them their own classes, or do multiclassing well and let us call our rogue-mage a Bard.</blockquote>

Verification