Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GoodKingJayIII" data-source="post: 4196058" data-attributes="member: 13804">I'm torn about all this.On the one hand, I want the rules to empower me to create the character concept I envision.&nbsp; In a game like DnD, characters are as much what they can do as who they are.&nbsp; As more information has been revealed about 4e, it's become apparent to me that the designers are really focused on the classes in a class-based system.&nbsp; Some would say this method is more structured; others, too rigid.On the other hand, we've all seen how multiclassing can get... <a href="http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801" target="_blank">out of hand</a>.&nbsp; The restrictions serve two commonsense purposes in my mind:&nbsp; they prevent broken combinations now and help future proof the system as new classes are introduced.As someone who rarely felt the need to multiclass beyond 5 levels, I'm fine with this system.&nbsp; In a class-based system, I believe that strong class structure across the board is important.&nbsp; Players should be rewarded for sticking with a class in a class-based system, not dipping into 3 or 4 or 5 choices to achieve a maximum effect.I've always thought that &quot;fewer base classes, the better.&quot;&nbsp; But in 4e, I think this is not the case.&nbsp; Classes are very specific now, but I think the bredth of types won't come from combining classes, but by creating options within the umbrellas; i.e., have more base classes to choose from in the Roles and Power Sources.&nbsp; For example, if we have a variety of options that fill out the Defender (Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, etc.), there may be less need for multiclassing, as the concept (say, a warrior with magical prowess) is better served by a new base class rather than shoehorning a multiclass combination into that role.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GoodKingJayIII, post: 4196058, member: 13804"] I'm torn about all this. On the one hand, I want the rules to empower me to create the character concept I envision. In a game like DnD, characters are as much what they can do as who they are. As more information has been revealed about 4e, it's become apparent to me that the designers are really focused on the classes in a class-based system. Some would say this method is more structured; others, too rigid. On the other hand, we've all seen how multiclassing can get... [URL=http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=491801]out of hand[/URL]. The restrictions serve two commonsense purposes in my mind: they prevent broken combinations now and help future proof the system as new classes are introduced. As someone who rarely felt the need to multiclass beyond 5 levels, I'm fine with this system. In a class-based system, I believe that strong class structure across the board is important. Players should be rewarded for [I]sticking[/I] with a class in a class-based system, not dipping into 3 or 4 or 5 choices to achieve a maximum effect. I've always thought that "fewer base classes, the better." But in 4e, I think this is not the case. Classes are very specific now, but I think the bredth of types won't come from combining classes, but by creating options within the umbrellas; i.e., have more base classes to choose from in the Roles and Power Sources. For example, if we have a variety of options that fill out the Defender (Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, etc.), there may be less need for multiclassing, as the concept (say, a warrior with magical prowess) is better served by a new base class rather than shoehorning a multiclass combination into that role. [/QUOTE]

Verification