Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 4344293" data-attributes="member: 64945">So what exactly is the problem with a caster only having 17 spells, or a multiclassed caster only having 6 spells? In 4e spells are powers. All classes get 17 powers. Is the issue that you feel like casters should have more powers than everybody else? (I'm not saying you're wrong to feel this way, it's just not clear exactly what about it bothers you.)  Not to speak for theNater, but it's not that 4e feats make weaker characters. It's that 4.0 feats make up much less of a character's "strength" compared to how much the feats did in 3.5. More of the character's strength comes proportionally from powers and class features, less from feats. So yes, compared 1-to-1 against 3.5 feats, the 4e feats are weaker. But I think the point is that's not a useful comparison. (Also remember you do get more feats in 4e.) I think this point actually may relate a little bit to your concern about "casters only get 17 spells". 17 spells does seem like a pretty paltry selection compared to the bulging spellbooks of a 20th level 3.5 wizard. But there are two things to keep in mind: 1) Yes, wizards and other major casters did lose some power and flexibility in 4e - intentionally. They were too good compared to the other classes when you got to higher levels. They were like swiss army knives, with a spell to handle any given situation. It made them fun to play, but the problem was that they tended to outshine the other player characters at the table. Now everybody has those 17 powers (though hopefully with distinct effects). Everybody is much more likely to get an equal chance to contribute. 2) Even given that, I think you might still be comparing apples to oranges, making the downgrade to casters seem more severe than it actually is. Have you checked the ritual section yet? Those are basically noncombat spells, and there's no limit to how many of them your wizard can learn. They probably cover at least 50% of the spells that 20th level 3.5 wizard had in his book.  Magic missile is an at-will power that the wizard probably will be using all the way through level 30.  Many spells actually scale up as you level (see Sleep for example), and combined with the retraining/swapping opportunities, all your spells should be "working", not just wasting pages in your spellbook.  What Grantor said. You mentioned that you wanted a multiclass to give you a little bit of everything, so you could be a striker/controller/defender (I managed to mess up the multiquote and get the exact quote on that, oops). That is a definite change in 4e: a striker/controller/defender goes very much against the grain of the design. It is pretty much impossible to accomplish that with the rules as written. Again, the idea is to give everybody an area where they can shine; muddled roles works against that principle  Personally, I think the multiclassing rules look like a great way to relax the roles a little bit, to let you make a character that's not totally focused on the main role, without going too far in the other direction. But I haven't really played enough yet to be sure - that's just my feeling based on reading them. Which brings me to my final point. There's nothing wrong or stupid about any of the stuff you want, or ways that the multiclassing or other rules don't feel right to you. It's totally understandable that you miss that wizard with a spell for every occasion, plus two on Sunday, from 3.x, or the ability to attack twice when you have two weapons, or any of the other stuff. There's lots of people who feel the same way, in fact. I just think that if you really want to evaluate 4th edition, you have to check it out a bit on its own terms. Basically, play the rules as written for a while before you start house ruling things to make it more like 3.x. It's a radical enough shift that there are plenty of things that may just seem wrong when you look at them in isolation and compare them to 3.x, but in play, you may find their true value to be a lot different than you expect. Feat selection is a perfect example of this. The bare naked feat may seem weak and lame compared to a 3.5 equivalent. But in play, it may have a great synergy with a particular power that you have, or a power that one of your teammates has. It may work a lot better in the far more dynamic 4e battlefield, where everyone is moving around lots more than they typically did in 3.x. There are lots of things that aren't obvious on first read!</blockquote>

Verification