Multiclassing.

[neceros]

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...?

Please give me an example.

 

[The Little Raven]

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...?

You're not going to like the answer...

 

[Imp]

4e is almost the opposite. We are given many, many feats (Almost twice as much, if I can count) and class levels are the same. Even so, you can't choose your class levels now. You are your class, and that's it. Ergo, you get more feats, and now you have powers as well which help define your character.

Fourth edition is making it easier to design your character. Character concepts aren't about multiclassing anymore, because you don't have to. Take the feats that support your character (Which is what they are for, making your character different then everyone else) And powers that give you your abilities.

This is a blind assertion until we see the feats.

Fourth edition may well make it easier to design your character ten splatbooks in, but I'm not buying that the cores will compare that way.

 

[Olfactatron]

THIS. Very good point.

Seconded. This is the reason that, while i'm not super happy with the "sound bite" version of the multiclassing rules, I'm certainly waiting to see the rest of what can be done with out it.

 

[hong]

Please give me an example.

A blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.

 

[neceros]

A blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.

This is not a role, it's two roles. That is my point. Why would you want to mix heavy armor and a light armor? What is the end purpose of the character?

 

[Pistonrager]

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?

The opposite actually. The class can be very good, and with a little flavor change it can represent a different archetype. any idea that has a basis on a single background can be represented by the base class too, with only a slight adjustment of flavor.

The mighty samurai? Ok. Bushido, the way of the sword and the bow, acknowledged masters of combat and stategy. what class would you make the samurai? his own class? why? we have rangers, fighters and warlords to fill the 3 aspects. it's all about changing the flavor slightly. Now... I will say his own class would get the point across better, and have more generalized powers instead of focusing on one type. And surely, the character could be made with multiclassing... but why? If you can do it with one class, why shouldn't you.

 

[hong]

This is not a role, it's two roles. That is my point. Why would you want to mix heavy armor and a light armor? What is the end purpose of the character?

To play someone who is not purely a heavily armoured tank or a fragile striker, but a blend of both.

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

I like the idea that you won't be able to perform a finesse move with a Great Axe. It's absurd. Some ideas should be incompatible. In ridiculous 3.x you could perform a SA while charging on a warhorse with a hvy lance. How is that finesse? It's so stupid that no rational exists for why Rogues in 3.x have SA and not everyone.

Some features MUST remain incompatible by definition of predetermined class roles. That's a fundamental flaw of 3.x, not a feature. Multiclassing characters could do everything and be damn good, often better, than single classed characters.

4e seems to have drawn a line in the sand for multiclassing that 3.x never bothered to. At some point you have to say - incompatible. If you don't, then it's back to 7th grade Uber Everything characters that cleave the World after killing the gods, take a step, and Sunder the Moon.

 

[hong]

I like the idea that you won't be able to perform a finesse move with a Great Axe. It's absurd. Some ideas should be incompatible. In ridiculous 3.x you could perform a SA while charging on a warhorse with a hvy lance. How is that finesse? It's so stupid that no rational exists for why Rogues in 3.x have SA and not everyone.

Some features MUST remain incompatible by definition of predetermined class roles. That's a fundamental flaw of 3.x, not a feature. Multiclassing characters could do everything and be damn good, often better, than single classed characters.

Wait, sneak attacking with a longsword and dagger is stupid?