I think I have finally "put my finger on it"

[Lanefan]

That depends on how multiclassing works in 4E. Right now, if you multiclass you certainly do not become a 'one person party' - your skills and spells can't match normally expected DCs unless you are dealing with a couple of niches that deal with your character level rather than you class level.

If you cross far outside your main role, You get the abillity to aid the person really emphasizing that role, at best, or you gain a few tricks to keep up your sleeve. Otherwise, most multiclassing occurs within the role you're playing within the party.

True, perhaps. But if a party decides they're each going to multiclass all over the place, such that by 8th level they're all 2-2-2-2, the DM is realistically going to realize they're weaker than if they were all single-class 8ths and down-shift the challenges accordingly, or else wipe the party out in a hurry.

Lanefan

 

[WayneLigon]

Book of 9 Swords indicates to me that we are going to have fighters, rangers, knights, rogues, etc... flying through the air, jumping 20 feet into the air to land on roof tops, and then leap 40 to 50 feet from roof top to roof top, or leaping from treee to tree on the tips of their toes, or call on their "chi" to perform other super human and magical feats.

There's been no indication that the flavor in Bo9S make it into 4E. They've talked about using the same concepts from that book: martial maneuvers that add moves and techniques to the martial classes. There has not been word one that indicates 4E is going to have an eastern or anime-like flavor over a European one, or that the types of things you're talking about are going to be default abilities. Not one single solitary word.

 

[malladin]

It's nice that you've resigned yourself to loathing 4th Ed. months before substantial information is even set to come out. Disliking the little information - a series of ambiguous articles on design philosophy, pieces of subjective concept and promotional art, and anecdotes about malleable fluff - we've seen thus far is one thing. Disliking the work that that information composes the tiniest fraction of is another thing altogether.

It's nice that you've resigned yourself to liking 4th Ed. months before substantial information is even set to come out. Liking the little information - a series of ambiguous articles on design philosophy, pieces of subjective concept and promotional art, and anecdotes about malleable fluff - we've seen thus far is one thing. Liking the work that that information composes the tiniest fraction of is another thing altogether.

Its amazed me that the 'there's not enough information to be negative argument' negates to say how the same lack of information can justify a positive one. In both cases its people's feelings judgements and opinions and all are equally of value.

Nigel

 

[Lord Zardoz]

....You need the mage to counter the mages or clerics of your opponents. You need the Cleric to counter the clerics or mages of your opponents and to help your party quickly recover for the next battle. You need the fighter types to keep people off of the spellcasters while they cast their spells to bring down the enemy, and if the opportunity arises, interfere with enemy spellcasters trying to do the same to your group. Thieves are needed to safely travel through highhly secured and well guarded locations.

As long as you enjoy a particular style of game, more power to you. But I for one have always hated the idea that past a certain point, fighters are basically obligated to take a back seat to the magic users and watch them make stuff blow up.

I enjoy D&D because it is a fantasy game. And as much as the mage types are a central part of the game, I have no desire to see them dominate. I do not mind the idea that there one member of the party ought to be the big gun. Whad I do mind is the idea that the big gun must always be a mage.

Now, if that means stretching the abilities of Fighter, Barbarians, etc, to the point where the things they can do are well beyond the realms of plausibility, so be it. I want melee types that can cut a swath through an army the same way a mage can with fireballs. Why should anyone take a back seat to the mage when it comes to killing things just because I like Barbarians more than wizards?

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Rechan]

True, perhaps. But if a party decides they're each going to multiclass all over the place, such that by 8th level they're all 2-2-2-2, the DM is realistically going to realize they're weaker than if they were all single-class 8ths and down-shift the challenges accordingly, or else wipe the party out in a hurry.

Well that happens in 3e. If the 5th level party's only divine caster is a Cleric2/Pal3, they're in serious trouble.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Well I put my finger on what I disliked about 4e as soon as I discovered that my old 3.5 books where no good.

 

[Rechan]

Now, if that means stretching the abilities of Fighter, Barbarians, etc, to the point where the things they can do are well beyond the realms of plausibility, so be it. I want melee types that can cut a swath through an army the same way a mage can with fireballs. Why should anyone take a back seat to the mage when it comes to killing things just because I like Barbarians more than wizards?

I agree with you completely. But I think some people would say "The fighter should be restrained by reality; he shouldn't ever be doing anything Superhuman. He's JUST GOOD WITH HIS SWORD like a peak athlete." I've had that argument thrown at me while discussing this very topic.

When a fighter can take a giant-hurled boulder in the chest without being knocked down and keep swinging like he was at full power, he's superhuman. Fighters past level 5 are beyond "Peak Olympic Athlete" and moving into "Paragon" territory. Characters over 12th level are, quite simply, Superheros.

 

[Rechan]

Well I put my finger on what I disliked about 4e as soon as I discovered that my old 3.5 books where no good.

Your 3.5 rules are no good. The fluff isn't turned to sludge you know.

 

[Doug McCrae]

They can emphasize "roles" all they want with 4e, but if all-out multiclassing is still in the game it doesn't mean a thing.

I agree with this. Too easy multiclassing is a flaw in what is supposed to be a class-based system. In fact the class is D&D's greatest strength. And multiclassing will be more prevalent in 4e as it will no longer suck for casters. However it is very easy to houserule away if desired.

 

[Irda Ranger]

There's been no indication that the flavor in Bo9S make it into 4E. They've talked about using the same concepts from that book: martial maneuvers that add moves and techniques to the martial classes. There has not been word one that indicates 4E is going to have an eastern or anime-like flavor over a European one, or that the types of things you're talking about are going to be default abilities. Not one single solitary word.

Correct. "Emerald Frost" may be dumb, but it's not Asian.