Proposal: Clearing up Cunning Sneak, before it causes to many problems.

[elecgraystone]

That sums it up. Either you loose to much, make it not worth to take, or their is a cheesy option. And they 'destroy' the combat role system.

LOL 'destroy' the combat role system? it was already pretty iffy as it was. My warlock is as much a defender as she is a striker. My artificer is more of a striker than a leader. My druid was more of a defender than a controller before the nerf. At best the system was a suggestion.

I personally like the new hybrid system, and I was fully expecting to hate it. it's a much less feat intensive way to mix two classes. Do you give up a bunch of stuff? Sure do. Is it too much? Not in my opinion in most cases. Exception: hybrid druid and wildshape = lame.

I'm looking forward to adding a new hybrid character in the near future.

EDIT: With todays class act: assassins article, there is a MUCH easier way to get cunning sneak and shadow walk.
Make a human assassin/rogue
Take a multiclass warlock feat
Take cursed shadows feat
Take hybrid feat for cunning sneak
At second level (4th for non-humans) you have them both.

 

[renau1g]

Yeah I used to very much dislike the MC rules as I never felt it was a decent way to really feel like a multi-class, but the hybrids are great! I want to see what a runepriest|fighter can do... seems like a good combo. We'll have to see when the CB gets updated, it's too hard for me to do things by hand anymore...I'm so lazy. Damn you Wotc!

 

[Walking Dad]

Maybe soften up to much would be better to say. I'm no native speaker.

Perhaps it is just a matter of taste, but I like single classes more, even did in 3.5.

...

EDIT: With todays class act: assassins article, there is a MUCH easier way to get cunning sneak and shadow walk.
Make a human assassin/rogue
Take a multiclass warlock feat
Take cursed shadows feat
Take hybrid feat for cunning sneak
At second level (4th for non-humans) you have them both.

That is maybe the problem with hybrid: they don't proof these options before making new rules...

 

[elecgraystone]

Maybe soften up to much would be better to say. I'm no native speaker.

maybe a little but they where pretty vague guidelines before. You could have someone with that secondary role be better at a it then another person that hase the primary role but the way they are build.

Perhaps it is just a matter of taste, but I like single classes more, even did in 3.5.

LOL I played from the first day of 3.0 to the first day of 4E and the ONLY reason to play a single class was if you where a spellcaster. I don't think I ever had a straight class character in all the years of 3.0 and 3.5.

That is maybe the problem with hybrid: they don't proof these options before making new rules...

Not a problem with hybrids. If there is a problem, it's with proof reading. It took me 1/2 a second to think of that combo and any non-brain dead checker should have too. That makes me think that A: they want that combo to be possible or B: they have morons as checkers.

 

[Walking Dad]

maybe a little but they where pretty vague guidelines before. You could have someone with that secondary role be better at a it then another person that hase the primary role but the way they are build.

You are right.

LOL I played from the first day of 3.0 to the first day of 4E and the ONLY reason to play a single class was if you where a spellcaster. I don't think I ever had a straight class character in all the years of 3.0 and 3.5.

In AD&D 2nd I liked dual classing... And I mostly played spellcastes in 3.5. Straight base classes, but with prestige classes.

Not a problem with hybrids. If there is a problem, it's with proof reading. It took me 1/2 a second to think of that combo and any non-brain dead checker should have too. That makes me think that A: they want that combo to be possible or B: they have morons as checkers.

I fear it is the later. If they continue doing hybrid, they need to make the druid stronger (give them a beast and a normal at will!) and delete broken combos. Yes, they need better 'checkers'.

 

[renau1g]

It's fairly disappointing but I'm not even sure it's poor quality checkers, but rather that they might not care so much. With the new digital age and their ability to errata so easily now it's kind of like a video game released with bugs and "we'll just patch it later". The benefit of WOTC is that once you're on their DDI and have the updated rules that way I think they expect you to stay hooked as otherwise you have to print the 88 pages of errata and have it with you next to your rule books.

 

[elecgraystone]

Yes you may be right renau1g. It may be lax proofreaders instead of inept ones. Either way this one was pretty blatant.

I know people that don't have DDI and they have their 'extra' book called the 'book of errata'. They print them up in a binder and swap out pages when the new errata comes out. Then they have a removable label with the changes listed and put it inside the cover of the books affected. They save the label on the computer and add new errata to it to print out a new one when needed.

There are ways to manage without DDI, it's just a pain in the butt.

 

[Kalidrev]

Hrmmm... And how often does WOTC come out with Errata? With the cost of new binders, paper, ink toner for the printer, and removable labels... I think I'll stick with my $60/year for DDI, lol. Plus, I can access compendium at work, lol. I can't bring in a bunch of books and binders.

 

[renau1g]

Errata every 2 months. You can write an essay without a computer or the internet as well, but it's also a pain in the butt (ok maybe not without a computer anymore, but you get my point)

 

[elecgraystone]

With the cost of new binders.

$1 at dollar store.

paper

$20 for a box of 2000

ink toner for the printer

$20 every 6 months (ink jet, toner's for rich suckers) and that's printing EVERYTHING, not just WOTC.

removable labels

$1 for a stack of 20.

So $1 + .10 (I'll round the paper cost up) + $2-3 (a rough guess on ink usage) + .50 (we'll say 10 updates even though it's less) = $4.60 max in cost for the year. That's a lot less than $60 when you are on a budget. The person I'm talking about is disabled so having the folder at work isn't an issue for them.

I'm not saying DDI isn't easier or that it isn't the best way to deal with the errata. I'm just saying that you can get along without it, it's not THAT hard and it's a lot cheaper. With the money you save on DDI you can buy a few hardcover books and that's atractive to people without a lot of cash...