Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4202073" data-attributes="member: 162">Your examples? All melee, all the time.So no, 4e does not afford the same choices as 3.5.Look at 3.5 core. Take the rogue, or the fighter, or the barbarian. These classes can be taken in several different directions. Multiclassing makes it even more versatile (I don't want to get into a mechanical comparison of 4e and 3.5 multiclassing, though, so let's just leave it at the conceptual level). 4e multiclassing is taking a bit from another class - you might take the warlord feat, as a fighter, to give you access to it, but you're still a warlord.I'm not even talking about splats. Look at 3.5 core. It is entirely more versatile than 4e has - thus far - shown itself to be.Look at the warlord, as has been mentioned. All melee. You can't make a ranged warlord. Multiclassing doesn't solve the problem, either. Is it possible that there are some feats, or whatnot, to make it marginally possible? Sure. But from what we've seen, the warlord is all melee, all the time.Now look at any 3.5 class. Does it tell you that you must be ranged, or that you must be melee? Does it tell you you have to take one particular approach to the class? No, it doesn't.4e classes are archetypes, and I sincerely doubt that that's going to go away, because that seems to be how they're approaching class design nowadays.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GnomeWorks, post: 4202073, member: 162"] Your examples? [b]All melee, all the time[/b]. So no, 4e does not afford the same choices as 3.5. Look at 3.5 core. Take the rogue, or the fighter, or the barbarian. These classes can be taken in several different directions. Multiclassing makes it even more versatile (I don't want to get into a mechanical comparison of 4e and 3.5 multiclassing, though, so let's just leave it at the conceptual level). 4e multiclassing is taking a bit from another class - you might take the warlord feat, as a fighter, to give you access to it, but you're still a warlord. I'm not even talking about splats. Look at 3.5 core. It is entirely more versatile than 4e has - thus far - shown itself to be. Look at the warlord, as has been mentioned. All melee. You [b]can't[/b] make a ranged warlord. Multiclassing doesn't solve the problem, either. Is it possible that there are some feats, or whatnot, to make it marginally possible? Sure. But from what we've seen, the warlord is all melee, all the time. Now look at any 3.5 class. Does it tell you that you must be ranged, or that you must be melee? Does it tell you you have to take one particular approach to the class? No, it doesn't. 4e classes are archetypes, and I sincerely doubt that that's going to go away, because that seems to be how they're approaching class design nowadays. [/QUOTE]

Verification