Removing homogenity from 4e

[billd91]

Heh... I find the notion that 3e has incredibly robust multiclassing --ie, a really flexible character generation system-- erroneous at best.

3e can't hold a candle to M&M2e, which has the most robust character generation rules in all of d20. Though, to be fair, M&M doesn't really have multiclassing, it's character generation system is a classless point-buy.

(hey, everyone has a game they like to pimp!)

While M&M and other point-based systems are incredibly flexible, I don't think I'd equate an incredibly robust multiclassing system with the same kind of flexible character generation system that such systems provide. I don't really think you're speaking in the same terms.

Multiclassing implies a certain amount of flexibility wedded with a certain amount of archetyping. Holding up M&M as a standard for what multiclassing should be able to do is unfair since that is not what multiclassing is trying to do.

That said, the multiclassing in 3e is capable of providing the smooth talking warrior Hussar says he wants.

 

[billd91]

This is partially the reason I will be dumping the "class skills" restriction for my upcoming campaign. Since every 4E class can be decent in a fight I see no good reason to restrict skill selection. Each class will get the indicated number of trained skills but can pick from the whole list. This way the PC's can be trained in the skills they want without having to play class X or Y.

Can anyone explain to me why, in 4e, different classes get different numbers of trained skills? That aspect of the design mystifies me. If the combat is so balanced and separated from non-combat issues, why don't all of the classes have the same number of trained skills?

In this case, why would you leave the indicated number of trained skills the same as in the book?

 

[Fifth Element]

People mis-spell Hagen as Hagan or think it's my last name and Kirk my first all the time.

Try being named Iain Fyffe some time! I can't recall a day in my life I haven't had to spell it for someone or correct their mispronunciation of it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Try being named Iain Fyffe some time! I can't recall a day in my life I haven't had to spell it for someone or correct their mispronunciation of it.

What's your big problem? I get called by customers trying to complain about some stuff just because I have a common last name and share it with a guy in customer support!

You'd never get that!

 

[thecasualoblivion]

First off, the Diplomacy Fighter:

Half Elf

16 Str, 16 Con, 13 Dex, 8 Int, 10 Wis, 16 Cha

Background that gives Diplomacy as a class skill

Level 1 with +10 Diplomacy

You won't be upping charisma to the max, but that's overkill. Fighter can get away with 16 in its main stat better than any other class, and while Wisdom gives bonuses to the Fighter, its also something that can be sacrificed without too much pain. This isn't the best Fighter in the world, but its solid.

I played 4e for 6 months. pretty much all of my players got bored, partly becaue of the homogeneity, but mostly because the power structure interferes with immersion. Some people feel it is Homogeneous, some do not, but it is incorrect to say it is merely a misconception.

Its also a misconception to broaden the issue of homogenity to something most people find a problem and something that needs a fix. The OP did that.

 

[SSquirrel]

In 4e diplomacy isn't a class skill for fighters, nor will your fighter have a very high charisma score, unless you specifically gimp yourself in combat. So you can't really take any class and be as suave as you want. You'll have to settle for 1/2 level and feats while your paladin friend might have +8 more diplomacy than you.

Skill Training makes it a class skill, Skill Focus adds a +3 to the skill. Play a Half Elf for added Diplomacy bonus. 2 Feats spent in those first couple of levels will be felt more strongly than when the character is level 14, but yes you would lose some fighting ability, provided you would have spent those feats on combat related feats. If you were going to spend them on non-combat feats anyway, no loss



As far as M&M goes, building characters in that is not multi-classing, there are no classes. You are able to closely match a class and then add something that in another game would be a different class ability, but you can't multi-class if you have no classes. Honestly I'm surprised more people who complain about how X class ability can't be used by Y class haven't started opening things up/ The abilities are all, in theory, evened out within each level. Let a Rogue snag a Paladin daily if he really wants and has a convincing story for it. I wonder how badly the system would get jacked if you did that.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Can anyone explain to me why, in 4e, different classes get different numbers of trained skills? That aspect of the design mystifies me. If the combat is so balanced and separated from non-combat issues, why don't all of the classes have the same number of trained skills?

Good question. I was wondering the same thing.

In this case, why would you leave the indicated number of trained skills the same as in the book?

Its just easier to use the character builder.

 

[Imaro]

...

3e uses non-combat abilities to balance combat abilities. 4e doesn't. 4e only balances combat abilities with combat abilities.
...

I'm sorry but, like pg. 42 in the DMG being the answer to everything, this is another one of those things that gets under my skin. If 4e doesn't balance combat ability with non-combat abilities...

1. Why does a Rogue have 2x as many starting trained skills as a fighter?

2. Why are Combat and non-combat feats grouped together?

3. And why is the distribution of classes/primary &secondary attribute skills not equal?


Edit: And I see i've been at least partially ninja'd

 

[Hussar]

The notion that there are only two ways (and particularly those ways) to model "Suave McFightswell" in 3e, with its incredibly robust multiclassing rules, is...erroneous at best.

So, in order to be Suave McFightswell, I have to take levels in rogue, which is going to floor my BAB, and suddenly, for no apparent reason, I can find traps as well.

Sure, I can get what I want eventually but, what if I don't particularly want to wait three, four levels down the road to play the character concept that I probably should be able to play right out of the gate?

I mean, Suave McFightswell is hardly a unique snowflake here. We're talking about an archetype that's pretty common, whether it's Wesley from The Princess Bride, or any number of other stories.

Of course, this is the easy one as well. It's not like we're dealing with casters in the mix. I'm talking about a pretty bog standard character type that should not be at all difficult to make.

 

[billd91]

So, in order to be Suave McFightswell, I have to take levels in rogue, which is going to floor my BAB, and suddenly, for no apparent reason, I can find traps as well.

Floor it? By losing 1 or 2 points? Let's not get too hyperbolic here.

So why not take a level of bard instead and be able to inspire your friends with the quality of your oratory like good King Harry? He makes a reasonably good Suave McFightswell, his protestations to Katharine being more self-effacement than truth.

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height. On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war. And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'