D&D 4E Rich Baker on his 4e Warlord

[hong]

With weak abilities, you're missing out on aspects of your class you should be benefiting from.

"Should" is a value judgement. And if you choose one feat, you're missing out on aspects of your class that could have been boosted by choosing some other feat. No difference.

 

[charlesatan]

Did anyone express the opinion that favored classes were cool in any way? If you did, know that I hate you.

Whoever said anything about favored classes? He just mentioned that half-elves multiclassed better. Which could mean anything in the still-unknown 4E gaming paradigm.

Not cool. If the multiclassing is so perfect, it shouldn't matter which way you do it.

Sorry, I like the fact that there is a difference between a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 and Wizard 1/Fighter 1. Or else it's Diablo I all over again where you end up with multiclassed Fighter/Mages.

 

[Rechan]

"Should" is a value judgement. And if you choose one feat, you're missing out on aspects of your class that could have been boosted by choosing some other feat. No difference.

Except you have the option of choosing that feat. If it's been built into your class as a balance feature, you're missing it.

The aspect of your class you're benefiting from is not a "choice". If Paladin A with lousy Charisma could drop his Divine Grace, and Paladin B with the High Charisma could select it, you'd have a leg to stand on.

 

[hong]

Just subpar. Ineffective. Not as useful as it could be.

Not as useful as it could be under what conditions?

 

[Rechan]

Not as useful as it could be under what conditions?

Under all conditions.

 

[hong]

Except you have the option of choosing that feat. If it's been built into your class as a balance feature, you're missing it.

So? If everyone else is in the same boat, who cares?

The aspect of your class you're benefiting from is not a "choice".

Yes it is. There just happens to be an associated downside. But there's an associated downside with feat choices as well, it's just more subtle. I can take Toughness, but I miss out on Combat Expertise. Opportunity cost.

If Paladin A could chose to drop his Divine Grace, you'd have a point.

He can choose to max his divine grace by boosting his Cha. Or he could choose to max his damage by boosting his Str. Valid choice. Similarly, (hypothetical example) a wiz could choose to max damage output by boosting Int, or choose to max save DCs by boosting Cha. Again, valid choice. If everyone is presented with equivalent choices, balance is preserved.

 

[Aage]

This was said by a guy at wizard forums:

Classes should not be SAD nor MAD, they should be MEB (multiple effective builds); meaning that a fighter could benefit from charisma, intelligence, wisdom, whathaveyou, depending on his talent choices.


Edit: If talents or similar is the thing for 4e, a paladin wouldn't lose out on his divine grace by having low cha, because he would chose another talent instead, one which works of his good stat (say, for example, Dex?)

 

[Rechan]

So? If everyone else is in the same boat, who cares?

I DO.

Havn't you gotten that yet?

Yes it is. There just happens to be an associated downside. But there's an associated downside with feat choices as well, it's just more subtle. I can take Toughness, but I miss out on Combat Expertise. Opportunity cost.

Except that the two are not created equal. You're using an example of an near worthless feat over one that's optimally more useful and has much more traction

He can choose to max his divine grace by boosting his Cha. Or he could choose to max his damage by boosting his Str. Valid choice. Similarly, (hypothetical example) a wiz could choose to max damage output by boosting Int, or choose to max save DCs by boosting Cha. Again, valid choice. If everyone is presented with equivalent choices, balance is preserved.

Except that should should not be built into his class as a balancing factor. It leads to spreading resources too thin.

 

[hong]

Under all conditions.

Exactly. If everyone is uniformly ineffective under all conditions, then noone is ineffective.

 

[Rechan]

Exactly. If everyone is uniformly ineffective under all conditions, then noone is ineffective.

THis is one of those times that you shouldn't be taken seriously, isn't it? Because you're clearly not trying to make a point here.