Sorry but I have to disagree. Certainly some armies might be more straightforward but other lists such as the Eldar army can be as customizable to their options as 3e multiclassing.
Can 4.0 style class roles and 3.5 character customization co-exist?
- Thread starter Najo
- Start date
Sorry but I have to disagree. Certainly some armies might be more straightforward but other lists such as the Eldar army can be as customizable to their options as 3e multiclassing.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
).I don't think that reproducing the life path of an established literary figure is something that most players are interested in.
But hypothetically speaking, I think that the problem with this argument is that it represents an inability to divorce mechanics from fluff. If you can approximate your character concept with mechanics from a class that doesn't fit your theme, then just ignore the flavor text of the class. (admittedly this is a bit sticky with the Warlock, Paladin and Cleric, but not impossible)
For instance, Robin Hood could be mechanically represented with a Ranger (and a Warlord multiclass) but thematically is more of a Rogue. I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to take the Ranger mechanics and simply play the character as a Rogue rather than the typical wandering forest warden archetype.
I don't want to seem like I arguing with you, but I respectfully disagree. I've been playing 40k since 1st edition rogue trader and fantasy since the 3rd edition hardbound books. I currently have an army of eldar, black templars, necrons, and tyranids in 40k. In fantasy, I have High Elves, Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Chaos Daemons, and in the past I've played Empire, Orcs & Goblins, Wood Elves and Beastmen.
I have years of experience with the game both as a hobbist and an industry professional.
The armies that have flexbility are still limited in some fashion. Eldar have weak armor and small numbers, plus their units are highly specialised. Marines have a very well wounded force, but lack numbers and highly specialised troops like the eldar. Necrons have staying power and anti vehicle weapons, but lack flexibility and speed. Tyranids lack range and armor. Imperial gaurd are fragile to shooting and close combat, but have numbers and mobile armor. Dark Eldar are very fragile, lacking armor and heavy weapons, but they make up for it with hit and run troops and vehicles that a good player can effectively use if they know what they are doing. I can go on and on. Every army has things it is good at and things it is bad at.
It is not that a player wants to copy Conan necessarily, its that 4e won't allow that sort of life path to easily occur without metagaming. Most players do assoicate the fluff of the game with the mechanics, and they should as the game implies it more than not. I know you can look beyond that, and some groups do, but I think it is counter inituitive for most players to do so.
As for robin hood, I would say he is mostlyu ranger with some levels in rogue. Unfortunately, he would start with levels in rogue and then become a ranger, but 4e wouldn't let him.
See, the 4e characters cannot change their life path easily, they are stuck on it. This does not allow the hero's journey as defined by Jospeh Campbell to easily occur. How do you reflect dramatic moments in a character's life that changes the path they are on?
Look at heroes like King Arthur, Luke Skywalker, Aragorn, Elric, Jon Snow, etc.. I can go on. Nearly every heroic archetype D&D is based on has characters who start as one thing, go through major life changes and come out a hero. D&D 4e doesn't reflect that very well.
As for the hero's journey, I think that is something most players do want to experience.
Last edited:
To each his own. In my experience with an Eldar army you can make different builds to seak victory as it suits your taste. For example you can either build to damage your enemy, either buid to gain strategic points, either build to negate strategic points to your enemy or any combination of the above with equal chances to be able to deploy different tactics in each case and build to gain victory.
But wouldn't it be much more rewarding to be able to slowly piece your character concept together using mechanics from assorted splatbooks to finally arrive at the final result you want? Classes are a metagame concept to begin with. If you need to multiclass aggressively to be able to reach the final build you want, and have your character be able to do everything you envision him as being capable of, why not?
For example, a fighter is just someone who fights, and it should not matter whether he is a simple fighter20 or a hybrid consisting of 2-3 lvs from 7-8 classes+prcs, so long as the final product has abilities commensurate with the manner in which you plan to flesh him out as. There is nothing about a melee build with just 2 lvs of fighter which suggests that he is any less of a "fighter" than a fighter20.
If you just attempt to work around this by simply changing the names of existing abilities, one problem is that it may fail to differentiate your character build from other similar builds, making them feel and play the same. That may end up having a counter effect. I am already not buying the 4e illusion spells which are clearly just reflavoured evocation spells.
Maybe it is just me, but I find that I sometimes have just as much fun creating character builds as playing them, if not more.
Charwoman Gene
Adventurer
The 3e lifepath approach requires MASSIVE metagaming. Abilities are hard attached to class levels, so evasion is attached to 2 levels of d6 hit points.
I see the limitations in 4e, it is not as wide ranging as 3e, but the effectiveness of combination varies wildly, as opposed to 4e where they ALL suck just a little tiny bit.
I see the limitations in 4e, it is not as wide ranging as 3e, but the effectiveness of combination varies wildly, as opposed to 4e where they ALL suck just a little tiny bit.
BeauNiddle
First Post
Just have the DM be liberal with the retraining rules.
Robin of Loxly was a rogue who took a few ranger powers through multiclassing. When he made his choice to abandon his social standing and become an outlaw he remade the character as a ranger with a few rogue powers.
Skywalker was a farm hand (ace pilot) who took a few Jedi powers in a multiclass. When he went to Dagoba and met Yoda he retrained his whole class to Jedi with a multiclass in whiny git
If there is one moment of defining life changing then the DM should be open to changing the life of the character. The current rules allow a character to get half way between two classes. If they want to be further instead of going up the scale from their original class they should flip and then come back down the scale till they are pure class B (or as pure as they wish to be)
It's not a perfect solution but fits in well with current power rules since you replace a level 1 power with a higher level power - you don't remember it over the whole of your career. Characters are expected to forget abilities so something minor like changing class shouldn't have a noticable effect as long as the concept of the character is preserved.
jmucchiello
Hero
You don't. And there is a simple reason why. 4e characters START out as heroes. They have already had the life change that has catapulted them into being a hero. 4e characters and campaigns start in media res at 1st level.
Luke is already a trained jedi apprentice. Conan is already a rogue and becomes king by 10th level. Robin Hood is already stealing from the rich and a hero of the people.
Part of widening the sweet spot was eliminating the part before the sweet spot (5th level in 3.x). 1st level characters no longer start as minions as they did in earlier editions (in the sense that most were only one good hit away from going down).
I've posted several times before about the need for a tier below Heroic for those people who like to see how the hero came into being. But the GSL won't let me write it. It is my only difficulty with 4e. I love the old 1st to 3rd level stuff where your character was made of tissue paper. 4e doesn't have that kind of feel at 1st level.
