Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Atlatl Jones" data-source="post: 3943452" data-attributes="member: 54620">I'm loving everything I'm hearing.&nbsp; I'm probably going to buy the book, based on what this thread and the other previews have said.It seems more like an elegant way to get rid of some of the bad parts of 3e multiclassing, while still allowing flexible character concepts.Some of the things this fixes are:- Multiclass spellcasters. - Too easy to make useless weaklings because character concept requires a sub-optimal combination of classes.&nbsp; I once played with a druid/bard, who was a jack of a couple trades, master of nothing.- In 3e, class balance was wonky, because what was ideal for a single class character could be broken in a multiclass.&nbsp; Often, it was perfectly reasonable for a 1st level character to get a bunch of bonus feats or abilities that are useful to him at 1st level, but which become horrendously broken as a &quot;1 level dip&quot;.Plus, the unified progress of all classes in 4e makes it somewhat pointless to mix and match &quot;class levels&quot; like in 3e.&nbsp; Just take some different powers or class options and be done with it.In 4e, it seems like you gain the option of picking up some class abilities and powers, to blend together the abilities of the two classes.&nbsp; This will neccessarily affect the claracter's &quot;role&quot;, because a defender who takes some controller powers isn't as a good a defender who takes only defender powers.&nbsp; But the foundation is good enough to make the character not terribly weak.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Atlatl Jones, post: 3943452, member: 54620"] I'm loving everything I'm hearing. I'm probably going to buy the book, based on what this thread and the other previews have said. It seems more like an elegant way to get rid of some of the bad parts of 3e multiclassing, while still allowing flexible character concepts. Some of the things this fixes are: - Multiclass spellcasters. - Too easy to make useless weaklings because character concept requires a sub-optimal combination of classes. I once played with a druid/bard, who was a jack of a couple trades, master of nothing. - In 3e, class balance was wonky, because what was ideal for a single class character could be broken in a multiclass. Often, it was perfectly reasonable for a 1st level character to get a bunch of bonus feats or abilities that are useful to him at 1st level, but which become horrendously broken as a "1 level dip". Plus, the unified progress of all classes in 4e makes it somewhat pointless to mix and match "class levels" like in 3e. Just take some different powers or class options and be done with it. In 4e, it seems like you gain the option of picking up some class abilities and powers, to blend together the abilities of the two classes. This will neccessarily affect the claracter's "role", because a defender who takes some controller powers isn't as a good a defender who takes only defender powers. But the foundation is good enough to make the character not terribly weak. [/QUOTE]

Verification