Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vayden" data-source="post: 4439018" data-attributes="member: 57791">Answer in 2 parts:First, I don't think 3.x style multi-classing and 4e roles are diametrically opposed - it's more of a sliding scale - on the one side, you have something with no multi-classing or customization, sort of like OD&D (at least what I've heard about it, only played those rules for one night) where you start out as something and that's it for your adventuring career. On the other end you have a classless system where characters just pick powers of the appropriate level. 4e is a little farther towards one end of the slider, 3.x is a little farther towards the other end - they're both honestly pretty close to the middle compared to some of the other systems out there. Do I think 4e could use a little more customization? Definitely. And I've heard a couple of the designers say that one of the reasons they made multi-classing a feat-based system was so that they could add in more multi-classing options with new feats going forward. I'd like to see something along those lines come along. The beautiful thing about 4e's set-up though is that you have to purposefully try to make ineffective characters now - we have a player in one of my groups who is legendary for making bad builds - he took a swashbuckler character who couldn't do more than 10 points of damage a hit and had no way of bypassing DR into the Abyss in one campaign - with 4e, he's still having fun and playing characters he wants to play, but they're characters who contribute to the survival of the party. It's a nice change. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Second, I think too many people are hung up on class names and fluff at the moment - I've heard people complaining that they couldn't make a fighter who was a great archer. That complaint just doesn't make sense to me - make a Ranger, don't pick Nature as a class skill, and call yourself a fighter. It works out pretty well. I'm aware that those are extreme cases, but I have seen that specific complaint and similar ones on these boards.</blockquote>

Verification