4e multiclasses using feats. The system might not be to your liking, but you can't really say 4e doesn't have multiclassing.
And then there's the hybrid classing that came out later. Althought that resembles 2e's multiclassing rather than 3e's.
An Essay to Wizards of the Coast
- Thread starter Solauren
- Start date
4e multiclasses using feats. The system might not be to your liking, but you can't really say 4e doesn't have multiclassing.
And then there's the hybrid classing that came out later. Althought that resembles 2e's multiclassing rather than 3e's.
Me too. 3e/3.5e/Pathfinder makes that very straightforward with how skills work, more than any edition except maybe 2nd (which I didn't play much, AD&D to 3e for us).
While I don't like the way Rituals were done in 4E for the most part I like the idea of having them. I don't want It to be only utility spells being rituals.
I like the idea of a ritual being able to be cast any one, now magic users should have an easier time of it because they know the way to make the hand gestures and what not but mundane classes should be able to as well.
I think big spells like wish should be ritual that takes time to cast. Back in 3.0 identify took 24 hours and if something interrupted the identify you lost the spell and had to start over.
I like the idea of a ritual being able to be cast any one, now magic users should have an easier time of it because they know the way to make the hand gestures and what not but mundane classes should be able to as well.
I think big spells like wish should be ritual that takes time to cast. Back in 3.0 identify took 24 hours and if something interrupted the identify you lost the spell and had to start over.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
molepunch said:
IMO:
- On Multiclassing: 3e did it better. 4e's role protection means that your wizard must make a crappy fighter, if he wants to try. 3e's wide open field was a much better core idea. That said, the idea of getting other class's powers via feats is something I'm a fan of, and shouldn't be thrown away -- in fact, it should be expanded on.
- On Rituals vs. Noncombat Spells: Rituals are one of the red-headed stepchildren of 4e, with a ruleset that is costed inappropriately and an effect scope that is terribly limited. Noncombat spells aren't necessarily a better use of this, however, since they were silo'd with attacks and combat spells (which means they competed). There needs to be a middle ground between "Any ritual you can do, my skill checks can do better, faster, and cheaper" and "I can cast Wish seven times today." That middle ground, AFAICT, is: Rituals (and "martial practices") exist, everyone can access them, and use them for free, and they can do five big things: Big Healing (reviving the dead, healing disease), Big Killing (instant KO's from the safety of your own home!), Big Traveling (teleport, plane shift!), Big Discovery (scrying, divination), and Big Communication (charm person, dominate). Throw in summoning and item creation, too, why not.
- Skill Challenges: Skill challenges are another of the red-headed stepchildren of 4e, with a ruleset that is vague, ambiguous, and needs strong DM oversight to do with any semblance of coherence and challenge. The seed of the idea (also present in 3e) of multi-check goals is a good one, but without anything mechanical to do other than roll skill check after skill check, they are like a vacuum of fun, turning everyone suddenly from a veritable swiss-army-knife of deadly attacks in combat, into a OD&D fighter who just keeps making basic attacks anywhere else.
I say this as a guy who plays and enjoys 4e -- more than I've played of Pathfinder, actually. A lot of 4e's advances I wouldn't give up. But the noncombat aspects of 4e are poo on a stick for my purposes as a player and as a DM. Not that 3e's are necessarily any better, just that 4e's also suck goats hard.
Nod, 1st level in 4e is about 3rd or 4th level in earlier editions, IMHO.
I like having a starting character be one who an orc can take out with one blow.
Kannik
Legend
I wonder (and pure speculation here) if the edition in which one began playing -- or the game (if not D&D) in which one began playing -- has an impact on whether one sees 4e as being capable of supporting more "non-combat" story lines or not.
To myself, having cut my teeth on 1e, 4e is a bit of a return to the 1e (and perhaps even moreso 2e) way of doing things. In 1e who you were and what you made of yourself came from you, the player, in dialogue with the DM, rather than a number on your sheet. Your class and abilities were almost entirely combat oriented, unless you were a spell wielder and chose to memorize some non-combat spells. A noble fighter vs a street fighter was just in how you comported yourself, spoke, described yourself, and more. If you wanted to be a craftsperson you had to ask the DM if you could be, and they would adjudicate what may happen (with some rough guidelines in the DMG).
Back then, from a player perspective (at least mine and those I have interacted with over the years) Class = How you handle encounters, everything else was up for grabs. (2e began to add in NWPs into the mix in the core PHB, which grew even more in 3e)
Looking at the 1e PHB today one might well say "wow, this game is all about combat, there's no support for my diplomat in it!" And, indeed, there is no support for it. 4e has more support for it in the PHB -- the diplomacy skill is a big one for starters, not to mention character classes that support it. I myself found that 4e in the PHB said a lot about RP and assuming the role of a character (I remember noting it when I first read the PHB), even as the book produced reams and reams of powers.
I don't know if I have more of a point here (so why am I still typing?
) other than that if one was used to Class being only one part of your whole character persona from earlier editions if the way 4e returns (as I see it) to a similar construct does not imply to them that there is nothing other than combat possible to be elegantly done in the system.
Gods I hope the above is coherent -- I really ought not to post during the workday where I am writing one sentence every half hour in-between saves of the model.
peace,
Kannik
-Who has loved playing in every edition of the game he's played.
PS - I myself would not want to return to the full-on 1e ways of doing things (such as the complete removal of crafting and other such skills, which led me to put up my own rules on rpgnow that I feel are a good mix between strict and broad based and which I would happily submit for consideration for a 5e module to be included...
), nor the entire reliance on the player to be a well-spoken diplomat if they wanted to play a diplomat character. I like a right/balanced-amount of support for that kind of stuff and other non-encounter stuff.
To myself, having cut my teeth on 1e, 4e is a bit of a return to the 1e (and perhaps even moreso 2e) way of doing things. In 1e who you were and what you made of yourself came from you, the player, in dialogue with the DM, rather than a number on your sheet. Your class and abilities were almost entirely combat oriented, unless you were a spell wielder and chose to memorize some non-combat spells. A noble fighter vs a street fighter was just in how you comported yourself, spoke, described yourself, and more. If you wanted to be a craftsperson you had to ask the DM if you could be, and they would adjudicate what may happen (with some rough guidelines in the DMG).
Back then, from a player perspective (at least mine and those I have interacted with over the years) Class = How you handle encounters, everything else was up for grabs. (2e began to add in NWPs into the mix in the core PHB, which grew even more in 3e)
Looking at the 1e PHB today one might well say "wow, this game is all about combat, there's no support for my diplomat in it!" And, indeed, there is no support for it. 4e has more support for it in the PHB -- the diplomacy skill is a big one for starters, not to mention character classes that support it. I myself found that 4e in the PHB said a lot about RP and assuming the role of a character (I remember noting it when I first read the PHB), even as the book produced reams and reams of powers.
I don't know if I have more of a point here (so why am I still typing?
) other than that if one was used to Class being only one part of your whole character persona from earlier editions if the way 4e returns (as I see it) to a similar construct does not imply to them that there is nothing other than combat possible to be elegantly done in the system. Gods I hope the above is coherent -- I really ought not to post during the workday where I am writing one sentence every half hour in-between saves of the model.
peace,
Kannik
-Who has loved playing in every edition of the game he's played.
PS - I myself would not want to return to the full-on 1e ways of doing things (such as the complete removal of crafting and other such skills, which led me to put up my own rules on rpgnow that I feel are a good mix between strict and broad based and which I would happily submit for consideration for a 5e module to be included...
), nor the entire reliance on the player to be a well-spoken diplomat if they wanted to play a diplomat character. I like a right/balanced-amount of support for that kind of stuff and other non-encounter stuff.
Wormwood
Adventurer
Which is a valid and popular playstyle, granted.
But when a player has handed me a full-page background for a first-level character, the last thing I want to see is one unlucky hit forcing them to start from scratch.
Dannager
First Post
I hate it, and I hope I never have to go back to those barbaric days.
CM
Adventurer
Don't forget that the monsters are buffed too. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but most first-level 4e PCs would be hard-pressed to defeat the average orc grunt (being level 3-5) in single combat.
The orc vs. PC fight in 3e is decided by who hits first, while the 4e fight just allows more time for strategy to come into play. Comes down to a difference in playstyle but I don't think that makes 4th edition 1st-level characters superheroes.
Similar Threads
