invokethehojo
First Post
thanks, that article helped to explain it. I'm not really a fan of playing a character that buffs, but I think a multiclass striker/controller will probably fill most of what I want quite well.
Jack's of all trades classes: extinct? and "to bard or not to bard?"
- Thread starter invokethehojo
- Start date
malraux
First Post
Well, we'll have to actually see the rules to know for sure but... JoAT classes are going to be de-emphasized. Each class should be better at it's niche. So I doubt that a single class will fit your goal well. But, one of the goals of the 4e designers is to make multiclassing not suck, so you might be able to pull off a multiclassed warlord/wizard to create a bard. Similarly, another goal of 4e design is that no character should be excluded from participating in a game element. That is, all characters should be able to offer something to negotiations, trap disarming, skill based challenges, etc. If that's the case, then all classes have some element of JoAT built in.invokethehojo said:
Do you mean "jack of all trades" in the sense of "borrows from every traditional type of D&D character?" Or do you mean "jack of all trades" in the sense of a character who is reasonably competent against pretty much any type of challenge?
Because the first may be dead.
But the second seems to be all the more possible, thanks to 1/2 skill ranks. The neat thing about a 3e "jack of all trades" type, at least to me, was that no matter the situation the jack of all trades had at least something he could contribute. The fighting types might outshine him in combat, the skill types might outshine him at skills, and so forth, but he was at least DOING something when those challenges came up, unlike the fighting types who sat out skill problems and vice versa.
Ensuring that everyone gets a bit of that seems to be a professed design goal for 4e.
Because the first may be dead.
But the second seems to be all the more possible, thanks to 1/2 skill ranks. The neat thing about a 3e "jack of all trades" type, at least to me, was that no matter the situation the jack of all trades had at least something he could contribute. The fighting types might outshine him in combat, the skill types might outshine him at skills, and so forth, but he was at least DOING something when those challenges came up, unlike the fighting types who sat out skill problems and vice versa.
Ensuring that everyone gets a bit of that seems to be a professed design goal for 4e.
Aust Diamondew
First Post
Bard I don't think was ever designed to be a jack of all trades, despite what the fluff in the 3e PHB claimed. The bard was good at buffing, decent at skills and typically marginal in melee/ranged combat.
In 3e the best jack of all trades character I saw was a ranger, archery combat path and focused on favored enemy (human) plus 1 level of cleric plus magic domain.
With the ranger's decent feats and good BAB he was skilled at melee/ranged combat, 6 skill points per level and could use nearly any scroll or charged magic item.
I think something similar might be possible in 4e, but it'll be impossible to know till we've seen the system and had time investigate it.
In 3e the best jack of all trades character I saw was a ranger, archery combat path and focused on favored enemy (human) plus 1 level of cleric plus magic domain.
With the ranger's decent feats and good BAB he was skilled at melee/ranged combat, 6 skill points per level and could use nearly any scroll or charged magic item.
I think something similar might be possible in 4e, but it'll be impossible to know till we've seen the system and had time investigate it.
Yeah a high level bard in 3.5 was basically just a source of buffs rather then a jack of all trades. Their buffs do become really strong by that point so they are good to have around (giving your power attacking fighter with 4 attacks +6 to hit is huge), but they are kind of boring to play since every action you have is usually best spent providing some form of buff. I found combat was often a good time to run to the store, giving instructions on which song I was going to use on which round. It made playing a pure healer look excitng (since they at least have to make decisions on who to heal).
If the 4e cleric is any indication I suspect bard will be much more interesting....or at least much more active to play in 4e.
If the 4e cleric is any indication I suspect bard will be much more interesting....or at least much more active to play in 4e.
invokethehojo said:
I don't think that will matter as much anymore.
a) they've changed the assumption to one beasties worth of xp per PC in each encounter, building encounters by spending xp to buy beasties to throw at the PCs. Buy may be an objectionable term to some -- but there it is -- you're making a dnd mini team to go against the PCs.
b) they've already demonstrated that characters will be able to borrow powers from another class (though not exactly how, multiclassing, maybe feats??). See the warlock with the wizard spell, and the playtest report about a fighter tossing a fireball.
c) with healing spread out more, the role of the one untouchable role in every party (cleric) is seriously diminished on the healing side, and buffed on the combat contribution side. So, the loss of one player may not make as much difference (even if you have a cleric, you get the damage per round bump).
Well.. that's my 2c
deathdonut
First Post
I think you'll finally find the option you are looking for, but it wont be in the bard class.
Bards (as previously mentioned) are going to be another leader type. They'll likely make the group better in almost all ways, but they probably won't fill multiple roles in the sense you are looking for.
Likewise, I don't think the "half level for all skills" rule is going to make that much difference for you. Keep in mind that a player who is trained in a skill is the equivalent of someone 10 levels above him who is untrained. That's a HUGE disparity and while it might mean that your level 20 mage will be able to keep your party alive by hunting game, he will not be a substitute for the Ranger when it comes to tracking the level 20 quarry.
I think what you'll find is much more flexibility when it comes to customizing your character to fill the holes. Spending a single feat is all that is needed to fill your party's need for opening locks or disarming traps. Spending a reasonably few of your resources in the direction of multiclassing will probably give you access to mage or cleric rituals that will actually make a difference at all levels rather than being able to throw a 1d4+1 magic missile with your level 18 warrior (once he removes his armor).
They've also announced some hybrid options as previously mentioned by the druid, but if you're looking to fill substantial gaps in your party, keep an eye on the feats and multiclassing options.
Bards (as previously mentioned) are going to be another leader type. They'll likely make the group better in almost all ways, but they probably won't fill multiple roles in the sense you are looking for.
Likewise, I don't think the "half level for all skills" rule is going to make that much difference for you. Keep in mind that a player who is trained in a skill is the equivalent of someone 10 levels above him who is untrained. That's a HUGE disparity and while it might mean that your level 20 mage will be able to keep your party alive by hunting game, he will not be a substitute for the Ranger when it comes to tracking the level 20 quarry.
I think what you'll find is much more flexibility when it comes to customizing your character to fill the holes. Spending a single feat is all that is needed to fill your party's need for opening locks or disarming traps. Spending a reasonably few of your resources in the direction of multiclassing will probably give you access to mage or cleric rituals that will actually make a difference at all levels rather than being able to throw a 1d4+1 magic missile with your level 18 warrior (once he removes his armor).
They've also announced some hybrid options as previously mentioned by the druid, but if you're looking to fill substantial gaps in your party, keep an eye on the feats and multiclassing options.
arscott
First Post
In a certain sense, 4e makes every class a Jack of All trades.
Not in that they can do everything, as such.
But in that every class should have a way to overcome (or help overcome) most challenges.
Everyone contributes to combat now. Some may be better at certain aspects, and some at others, but everybody pitches in.
Everyone contriubutes to non-combat encounters, or so we've heard. Every class seems to get at least four skills now, and the skills themselves cover more ground. That, and the whole +1/2 level thing means that characters should have at least one pertinent skill in most situations.
Not in that they can do everything, as such.
But in that every class should have a way to overcome (or help overcome) most challenges.
Everyone contributes to combat now. Some may be better at certain aspects, and some at others, but everybody pitches in.
Everyone contriubutes to non-combat encounters, or so we've heard. Every class seems to get at least four skills now, and the skills themselves cover more ground. That, and the whole +1/2 level thing means that characters should have at least one pertinent skill in most situations.
Nahat Anoj
First Post
I don't think there will be any single class that is a true "Jack of all trades but master of none." IMO (given that I haven't seen any of the rules), the closest thing 4e will have to Jacks are classes in the Leader Role. Because they are designed to support and augment other classes in various ways and seem to be good second-rank Defenders, they most closely resemble Jacks (in that a Jack's versatility allowed him to support or stand-in temporarily for specialist classes).
So I'd say if you want to be a Jack in 4e you should start out as a Bard or Warlord then multiclass once or a few times into some other classes. And play a Human or Half-Elf. My sense - I have little hard data to back it up - is that those races will be "best" at being generalists, albeit in slightly different ways.
So I'd say if you want to be a Jack in 4e you should start out as a Bard or Warlord then multiclass once or a few times into some other classes. And play a Human or Half-Elf. My sense - I have little hard data to back it up - is that those races will be "best" at being generalists, albeit in slightly different ways.
Similar Threads
