Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lurks-no-More" data-source="post: 3908735" data-attributes="member: 8226">First of all, if we keep the classes in D&D (as we should do, IMO; some sacred cows you don't slaughter, no matter what!), then those classes must be meaningful. The situation in, say, 1e AD&D was that your class dictated most of what you could possibly do, ruleswise: every fighter with the same stats was more or less identical, and none of them could pickpocket, ever. (I'm ignoring dual-classing here, because it both sucked and blew.) And if you were a wizard, you couldn't wear armor or wield a sword, period. I think it is mostly agreed that this was too restrictive; 2e didn't really fix anything in this regard.3.*e has been much better about this: you can make wizards who fight with swords and wear armor, or fighters who are good at pickpocketing; and two 9th-level fighters with the same stats can be very different. There have been problems, though, with things like trying to multiclass a primary caster with anything else, or with clerics being better fighters than fighters, and so on. So obviously, there is room for change and (hopefully) improvement.As far as I can tell, the 4e designers want to keep your class choice meaningful, yet allow you to do things beyond the primary scope of the class (this may, depending on what you want, require multiclassing or taking of certain feats). But it shouldn't be easy to "steal" another class' shtick.</blockquote>