Multiclassing.

[Olfactatron]

The problem is the "Can of Worms" in DnD multiclassing. When a character can do more damage than an entire party then how, as a DM, do you make that challenging? When is it a challenge and when is it a TPK?

The problem is one of game balance. On one hand, you have a ridiculous character that is based on throwing as many dice in combat as possible, and on the other hand you have the rest of the group. When you make the game challenging for an Uber Cheese PC it can easily become a TPK when UPC dies.

I completely agree. It's not at all easy. In that particular campaign my solution was to give the wweaker characters artifact weapons. Smoothed things out nicely and gave me the opportunity to design some of the craziest monsters I could come up with. But that game was all about excess anyway, I'm not at all saying it's how everyone should play. Hell, I only did it once.

 

[AtomicPope]

If you can easily get the flavor of a bunch of different character types by changing a few words, then you don't have strongly defined classes. Which is it?

*sniff* *sniff*

Imp or Troll?

 

[neceros]

Show me which feats to use to build a blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.



Class levels are meaningless. Classes are very meaningful indeed.

Fighter, Rogue Multiclass feat. Big-Honkin-Weapon proficiency feat.

 

[hong]

Wait a minute. Those are bad? Why? Now all of a sudden something is bad. Because you don't like?

Those are bad because ftr/wiz is an inherently hard concept to support.

It is very simple. I'm not saying that the multiclassing mechanic has to support things like ftr/wiz which are hard. It has to support blending fighter, rogue, ranger (and possibly warlord), which should be easy.

I do not have a problem with 4E ftr/wizzes being so crappy that noone will ever play one. But it should beable to support blending other classes as mentioned above.

So if it's not your baby, it's an ugly baby.

Of course.

 

[hong]

Fighter, Rogue Multiclass feat. Big-Honkin-Weapon proficiency feat.

And is the result as useful as a heavily armoured tank or a lightly armoured, fragile striker...?

 

[Stalker0]

Fighter, Rogue Multiclass feat. Big-Honkin-Weapon proficiency feat.

Why do this when I can take the ranger multiclass feat? I don't need to meet the dex prereq, I can quarry with any weapon, and the effect lasts all combat, as opposed to a single poke. Further, quarry I just do, sneak attack I will have to get combat advantage (and since I don't have first strike, that's even harder to do).

The rogue feat looks so incredibly weak compared to the ranger feat its not even funny.

 

[MaelStorm]

Are they?

WOTC_Miko I'm sure pointed out that she took a feat to allow her rogue to use a Rapier as a light blade sorta thing.

Feats are how you customise your character now, so a swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword seems to be done via feats, not multiclassing.

In 3.5, multiclassing was the primary way to customise your character in some respects.
in 4e, it's all feats.

There are hundreds of them, apparently - we'll have to wait and see.

THIS. Very good point.

 

[neceros]

And is the result as useful as a heavily armoured tank or a lightly armoured, fragile striker...?

He sure is a heavy defender, since that's his role. Lightly armored? No, he definitely wears heavy armor. Striker? No he's a defender, not a striker. You can only have one role.

 

[hong]

*sniff* *sniff*

Imp or Troll?

I am the troll, thank you very much.

 

[hong]

He sure is a heavy defender, since that's his role.

That is the role of the class as defined in the rules. Now what happens if you happen to have a concept that doesn't fall neatly into one of roles...?