Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Li Shenron]

I think it's a half full/half empty thing. Instead of obsessing over the things you can't do, why not focus on the things that you can do instead?

Ehm... that's exactly the attitude I've been trying to keep through all my years of gaming in 3ed. The result? I'm still enjoying 3.0 and didn't even need to switch to 3.5!

 

[Imp]

As for other weapons... I think few melee weapons are quite as quick and subtle as the knife, and certainly greatswords, axes, clubs, spears, and staves are not. I can't imagine any of them being really good for striking precisely in the blink of an eye and sneaking an attack past the opponent's defenses, simply by virtue of being to heavy or requiring too large and obvious of a wind up to the attack.

Dude, look up escrima on Youtube for clubs – you can also find videos of large swords, spears (well, not so much longspears), and especially staves being brought to bear with the kind of speed and precision you'd want to imagine a sneak attack employs. Also working against a knife in those kinds of situations is reach.

Basically, it's easier to just plain ignore the whole idea of weapon verisimilitude, I've decided.

It is nice that previously neglected weapons are getting love in the new edition. I had to houserule slings into having a point in 3.5e.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I do have to say that one of the things I think sneak attack should do in a more general sense is provide love for small weapons.

A two-handed sword should already be doing most of the damage sneak attack provides.

A special knowledge of anatomy and the value of surprise is going to provide diminishing returns for a weapon that's essentially a perfectly balanced, razor sharp, I-beam.

Not hitting a major organ is going to be the difficult point.

For a dagger or light blade, it's not that they're better weapons for sneak attack it's that sneak attack represents the training you need to use those weapons as effectively as any proficient user can use a Bastard Sword.

It's more Rogues knowing how those weapons should be used and that providing the extra compensatory sneak attack damage, rather than Rogues knowing those are the weapons you should use for sneak attacks.

 

[IceFractal]

I notice a lot of people have been mentioning multiclassing as a solution to narrow class roles. While it may be a solution, all the information I've heard up to this point is somewhat contrary to that.

What it seems like, based on the mention of the Class Training feats, is that you can't do 3E-style "Rogue 5/Fighter 5" style multiclassing. Instead, you have a class, and then you can use feats to get specific abilities from other classes (might be almost all their abilties, might be just a few). So right off the bat, you're going to be burning a lot of feats if you want anything like an even split - it's better suited to, in 3E terms, dipping.

Secondly, there's the issue that if other classes are limited to specific weapons like the Rogue is, their abilties won't have any practical synergy when multiclassed. If I'm trying to multiclass Fighter and Rogue, but the Fighter abilties are geared to polearms, maces, and heavy swords, then they don't really combine at all. Which was the reason 3E caster-multiclassing sucked, BTW - having two abilities you can use one at a time isn't the same as having two abilties that synergize, or one stronger ability.


Now I may be wrong on this - the information released has been limited, and things may have changed since then. However, there's equally no indication that you can do anything like a 3E multiclassed hybrid. So I don't think it's a relevant solution at the present time.

 

[hong]

I notice a lot of people have been mentioning multiclassing as a solution to narrow class roles. While it may be a solution, all the information I've heard up to this point is somewhat contrary to that.

What it seems like, based on the mention of the Class Training feats, is that you can't do 3E-style "Rogue 5/Fighter 5" style multiclassing. Instead, you have a class, and then you can use feats to get specific abilities from other classes (might be almost all their abilties, might be just a few). So right off the bat, you're going to be burning a lot of feats if you want anything like an even split - it's better suited to, in 3E terms, dipping.

No, it's better suited to, in 3E terms, cherry-picking. Besides, you don't know just how many class abilities the multiclassing feats get you.

Now I may be wrong on this - the information released has been limited, and things may have changed since then. However, there's equally no indication that you can do anything like a 3E multiclassed hybrid. So I don't think it's a relevant solution at the present time.

Of course it's relevant. The whole point of multiclassing is to do what you're talking about: create something that isn't covered by the base classes individually. The instant you hear anyone say "no, you CAN'T multiclass", it becomes irrelevant.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I notice a lot of people have been mentioning multiclassing as a solution to narrow class roles. While it may be a solution, all the information I've heard up to this point is somewhat contrary to that.

What it seems like, based on the mention of the Class Training feats, is that you can't do 3E-style "Rogue 5/Fighter 5" style multiclassing. Instead, you have a class, and then you can use feats to get specific abilities from other classes (might be almost all their abilties, might be just a few). So right off the bat, you're going to be burning a lot of feats if you want anything like an even split - it's better suited to, in 3E terms, dipping.

Secondly, there's the issue that if other classes are limited to specific weapons like the Rogue is, their abilties won't have any practical synergy when multiclassed. If I'm trying to multiclass Fighter and Rogue, but the Fighter abilties are geared to polearms, maces, and heavy swords, then they don't really combine at all. Which was the reason 3E caster-multiclassing sucked, BTW - having two abilities you can use one at a time isn't the same as having two abilties that synergize, or one stronger ability.


Now I may be wrong on this - the information released has been limited, and things may have changed since then. However, there's equally no indication that you can do anything like a 3E multiclassed hybrid. So I don't think it's a relevant solution at the present time.

The mechanical details of multiclassing might be different from 3.0, but that doesn't mean it's less useful (or more ).

The problem in understanding the implications of the new multiclassing system is that we're
1) still stuck (or at least best familar) with the 3E approach on multiclassing.
2) don't know enough about the 4E multiclassing system.

In 3E, the cost for multiclassing was spending a full character level. You got a full class level in return.
In 4E, the cost for multiclassing might be a feat. You get a subset of class abilities in return.

It is different. But it's hardly possible to say which is superior. We know that the 3E system had weaknesses:
- Front-loaded classes lead to cherrypicking, but also getting abilities you didn't care for and might not fit your intentions.
- Spellcaster multiclassing lead to characters that were ineffective.

 

[Crashy75]

Sure we are stuck in the 3.x box but what else do we have to go on? When I use the term 'class' among non-gamers I understand that they will assume I am referring to the R/L definetion. When a dev uses the term 'multi classed' to us (s)he has to know most of us will assume that (s)he means something very similar to our 3.x experience. (and in 3.x taking an angry feat, for example did not make you a m/c barbarian.) Using the term with such a different meaning is intentionally deceptive.

 

[Celebrim]

If the range increments are simply determined by taking the maximum possible miracle shot range and then dividing it by ten, the sling is heavilly underrated.

I'm struggling to understand why this is a contridiction.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sure we are stuck in the 3.x box but what else do we have to go on? When I use the term 'class' among non-gamers I understand that they will assume I am referring to the R/L definetion. When a dev uses the term 'multi classed' to us (s)he has to know most of us will assume that (s)he means something very similar to our 3.x experience. (and in 3.x taking an angry feat, for example did not make you a m/c barbarian.) Using the term with such a different meaning is intentionally deceptive.

IIRC, AD&D also had multiclassing and dualclassing. How close is that to 3.x multiclassing rules?


... intentionally deceptive ...
I am always tempted to pick the Angry Posting feat or even a Berserking Board Member level when I read stuff like this. It's a baseless accusation that does nothing except insulting others (in this case - like too often, when I see it - the guys at WotC).

 

[Celebrim]

IIRC, AD&D also had multiclassing and dualclassing. How close is that to 3.x multiclassing rules?

... intentionally deceptive ...
I am always tempted to pick the Angry Posting feat or even a Berserking Board Member level when I read stuff like this. It's a baseless accusation that does nothing except insulting others (in this case - like too often, when I see it - the guys at WotC).

Errr....mmmmm....the thing is, I can understand why the poster thinks that it is deceptive. He might have been 'angry posting' when he shouldn't have, but his underlying point is sound once you take away some of the unnecessary spittle flinging.

Yes, he should not overreach and speculate on the reasoning and motivation of the designers, but taking a feat to gain access to another classes skills or per encounter abilities is in fact nothing like multiclassing in 3.X, or even 1e or 2e, to the point that calling it multiclassing is in fact highly misleading. My elfin thief 5/M-U 4 in 1e was fully a thief 5 and fully a M-U 4. A wiz4/rog5 in 3.X was fully both a rogue and a wizard. Anyone with prior experience in any edition of the game is going to initially understand multiclassing to mean things like, 'Having the full benefits of more than one class' and 'Not being any more a member of class X than class Y, save to the extent of disparities in levels between the classes.'