Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5996783" data-attributes="member: 87792">Possibly.  If you count people with two level dips in the fighter class, normally in order to qualify for the prestige class they are actually interested in as fighters.  On the basis it's a tier 5 class that can't even outfight a cleric.  It's supposedly aimed at beginners but in fact is the hardest class to build well because there are so many parts you need to pick for which the consequences are non-obvious.  People like it because they want to play a fighter.  But mechanically with very rare exceptions (charge cheese and spiky chain master) it doesn't cut it.  I'd say that S&P showed why it shouldn't be done.  Munchkin's paradise. Of course many of the OGL games pushed the envelope.  Point buy is an obvious way to go if you don't get the advantages of class based.  [Citation needed] - are you thinking of human dual classing?  Or are you thinking of elven fighter/magic user/thieves?  (In 4e that would probably be called a bard or a bladesinger trained in thievery).  4e you can old school multiclass with hybrids, or you can take a splash of another class with feats, or you can take a lot of a class other than the one you started with by paragon multiclassing.  AD&D if you weren't a human you were whatever class combination you started with.  So tell me about flexibility - all the demihuman multiclassing does is creates some weird additional multiclasses like the elven fighter/mage.  I was good enough to build a small but decent rep on the char-op boards back in the day as a strong second tier opper.  And the range of characters I can produce in 4e is greater than in 3.X and, more to the point, all of them are viable.  Character flexibility is IMO greater in 4e than 3.X and you don't have the metagame worries "Do I have a 20 level build?", "Am I going to be crap at level 7 in exchange for supreme power later (Mystic Theurge, I'm looking at you!)" or am I just going to be crap throughout (Monk, I'm looking at you!).  I've seen very few character concepts that don't fit in 4e other than the Supreme Powah Mage - but one of the best ways of producing a fighter/wizard 3.5 ever produced was the bard. We're posting in a 5e forum because even as a keen 4e fan, all the support I think 4e wants beyond this point is Spelljammer, Birthright, Mass Combat, Quick Combat, and Domain Management rules.  Oh, and some good adventures.  It's finished and doesn't need to go into the 3.X model with books like Races of Eberron or Serpent Kingdoms (a book chiefly known for adding the Sarrukh and Venomfire to the game - and published less than a year after the 3.5 PHB). The abberation is 3.X.  And you can figure out most of Pathfinder's design decisions by looking at 4e and drifting the 3.5 ruleset in that direction.  At will spells?  Taken straight from 4e.  New classes that really don't play well with others?  4e and class based, leaving 3.X as the outlier.  Alternate features allowing for greater customisation of a class within the bounds of thaat class, making the temptation to multiclass less.  Yup, all 4e classes do this.  You miss the third point.  The fighter could literally kill anyone in swords range at level 13 with no attack roll needed or saving throw allowed and he'd still be less useful to the party than a primary spellcaster.  Or to quote or at least paraphrase Frank Trollman in his area of expertise, "If a wizard were offered to become a full gestalt fighter at the cost of one caster level he'd be justified in thinking it over". You can't do very much to help fighters without feeding 3.X style vancian wizards, clerics, and druids through a woodchipper.  The casters are just too powerful if played well.</blockquote>

Verification