Removing homogenity from 4e

[Mallus]

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.

I know, but...

Multiclassing implies a certain amount of flexibility wedded with a certain amount of archetyping.

... AFAIC, 3e doesn't offer archetypes, it offers a large number of class ability packages which you can freely mix and match. It's more of a clunky point-buy system than an archetype based one (say like 1e, or even 4e), especially when you consider the magic item economy, which is a naked point-buy superpowers system, where the points used to buy powers are commonly referred to as 'gold'.

Also, can you really call a system with that many archetypes, well, archetypal? It seems to me the sheer profusion of so-called archetypes reduces them to mere 'bundles of stuff a PC can do'.

My experience of 3e character creation is you start with an idea/archetype, then you root through the books looking for the best mechanics to represent it (ie, the selection of the archetype precedes any engagement w/the rules).

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.

Isn't it? What's the purpose of multiclassing if not to allow a greater variety of character types?

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

Out of curiosity, how would you do? It's been a long time since I played the 3e character-building mini-game, and I kinda miss it.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Wouldn't Wesley be a Swashuckler from Complete Warrior... in fact why not take a single level of Swashbuckler to gain Diplomacy as a class skill...for no loss of BAB?

 

[Greg K]

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.

There is also character customization from the phb

 

[billd91]

Isn't it? What's the purpose of multiclassing if not to allow a greater variety of character types?

It does. But with the constraints of working within a class-based game, each class based around a basic archetype.

Personally, I like going the King Harry route (fighter, bard), though given his behavior in the Henry IV plays, taking levels of rogue may work too.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'd rather be able to do it as a straight Fighter without sacrificing much. In 4E I can.

 

[billd91]

I'd rather be able to do it as a straight Fighter without sacrificing much. In 4E I can.

You can do it with just one feat in 3.5 too. I think there's on in Eberron called Education. I've heard there's one in Rokugan called Versitile.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You can do it with just one feat in 3.5 too. I think there's on in Eberron called Education. I've heard there's one in Rokugan called Versitile.

A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.

But being good at Diplomacy as a Fighter in 4E is straightforward. Pick Skill Training for the skill you want. If you want, pick a good Charisma. And invest a second feat for skill focus.

The difference is that 4E doesn't hide such options. Of course, it sometimes just doesn't have them at all, and then you're out of luck.
"I want to play a shapeshifting nature priest" - "wait for PHB 2". At least it tells you: "THis is the book if you want a shapeshifting nature priest." I don't think the FR book came out and told anyone "this is the book to make a charming Fighter" (or, more general, a versatile skill user).

 

[Imaro]

A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.

But being good at Diplomacy as a Fighter in 4E is straightforward. Pick Skill Training for the skill you want. If you want, pick a good Charisma. And invest a second feat for skill focus.

The difference is that 4E doesn't hide such options. Of course, it sometimes just doesn't have them at all, and then you're out of luck.
"I want to play a shapeshifting nature priest" - "wait for PHB 2". At least it tells you: "THis is the book if you want a shapeshifting nature priest." I don't think the FR book came out and told anyone "this is the book to make a charming Fighter" (or, more general, a versatile skill user).

Or... "I wanna play a rogue whose competent with a shortbow...". Wait for...*crickets*...*more crickets*...

Yeah, because that's such an uncommon archetype

 

[billd91]

A feat found in some later supplement. (And I think in fact a feat found in Forgotten Realms books, not "core books"). That is one of the "problems". You can build a lot, if you just know where everything is and how to mix all the things.

But being good at Diplomacy as a Fighter in 4E is straightforward. Pick Skill Training for the skill you want. If you want, pick a good Charisma. And invest a second feat for skill focus.

The difference is that 4E doesn't hide such options. Of course, it sometimes just doesn't have them at all, and then you're out of luck.
"I want to play a shapeshifting nature priest" - "wait for PHB 2". At least it tells you: "THis is the book if you want a shapeshifting nature priest." I don't think the FR book came out and told anyone "this is the book to make a charming Fighter" (or, more general, a versatile skill user).

I'm not going to say that the Skill Training feat was a bad idea. It certainly wasn't and was long overdue to come out of WotC, if you ask me. Though, for those of us DMs who are accustomed to tweaking classes at player requests (as the DMG even addresses), trading a class skill out to make diplomacy a class skill was simplicity itself. No feat was required.

But I wouldn't say that WotC "hides" the feat options. They have a feat index available on-line. They weren't hiding any particular content. They may not have explicitly publicized all of the options buried away in books, but that won't change with 4e. They may have told people to wait for PH2 for the druid, bard, and barbarian, but then those were particularly high profile omissions from 4e's initial offering. What else did they omit from 4e's initial books that people might have wanted? Are they going to receive the same level of publicity as the druid, barbarian, and bard? I don't think so.

 

[Mallus]

Personally, I like going the King Harry route (fighter, bard), though given his behavior in the Henry IV plays, taking levels of rogue may work too.

That's a pretty good way to go. 4 or so fighter levels, the rest in bard and maybe a PrC or two. You kinda have to start as a bard for the skill points (you really need them if you want all the Diplomacy synergies), AC will be a problem, and you'll never be more than a middling warrior, even with spell self-buffs, but all-in-all a reasonable stab at the archetype.

The only real drawback is external; if the rest of the part contains more tightly focused/optimized characters -- of course, that's a problem with any bard...