Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[Savage Wombat]

Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

Q1: Solo Monsters

Q2: Multiclassing

Q3: Cone and Line spells

Discuss.

 

[am181d]

I noticed he ducked the biggest issue with 3e multi-classing: caster levels. I've always thought this was an eminently solvable problem, and it'd be great if they took it the next step and fixed the thing. (One partial fix is to make caster level equal to total character level, so a Wiz5/Ftr5 only gets the spell slots of a Wiz5, but his fireball still down 10d6.)

My fear is that WotC are going to go in the direction of "well, we can't make everything not-broken."

 

[the Jester]

I noticed he ducked the biggest issue with 3e multi-classing: caster levels. I've always thought this was an eminently solvable problem, and it'd be great if they took it the next step and fixed the thing. (One partial fix is to make caster level equal to total character level, so a Wiz5/Ftr5 only gets the spell slots of a Wiz5, but his fireball still down 10d6.)

My guess is that caster level won't really count directly- neither on spell resistance nor directly on spell effectiveness.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I noticed he ducked the biggest issue with 3e multi-classing: caster levels. I've always thought this was an eminently solvable problem, and it'd be great if they took it the next step and fixed the thing. (One partial fix is to make caster level equal to total character level, so a Wiz5/Ftr5 only gets the spell slots of a Wiz5, but his fireball still down 10d6.)

Since we're pretty sure a Fireball will do 5d6 regardless of level, I think he's implying that caster level isn't going to exist in DDN.

I think it also implies that there's still going to be some advancement by level, just not as much as before.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I noticed he ducked the biggest issue with 3e multi-classing: caster levels. I've always thought this was an eminently solvable problem, and it'd be great if they took it the next step and fixed the thing. (One partial fix is to make caster level equal to total character level, so a Wiz5/Ftr5 only gets the spell slots of a Wiz5, but his fireball still down 10d6.)

My fear is that WotC are going to go in the direction of "well, we can't make everything not-broken."

Wasn't it already quoted somewhere that spells might not necessarily scale by level anymore, and if you want a fireball to do more damage you'd have to use higher level slots?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Wasn't it already quoted somewhere that spells might not necessarily scale by level anymore, and if you want a fireball to do more damage you'd have to use higher level slots?

Yep, which is how my magic system handles things, and it works very well.

I like the "no assumption of a battlemat" statement, too. I played 3.X with no battlemat with no problems, though 4e seems like it might push it a little bit too far at times (though I'm sure as GM I'd get by fine, I'd just need to express things well to the players). As always, play what you like

 

[Ahnehnois]

My fear is that WotC are going to go in the direction of "well, we can't make everything not-broken."

Well, they can't.

***

When you gain a level, you can choose any class and gain a level in that class, much in the same way that it functioned in 4th Edition.

I am not a 4e rules expert, but doesn't it not work that way?

In any case, hopefully they make the math so that the free multiclassing is more uniformly viable.

None of the other comments had much substance. It sounds like they're trying to do monsters "right". Not exactly a news item.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am not a 4e rules expert, but doesn't it not work that way?

You're right it doesn't and I'm not sure why he says this. You could multiclass from day 1, or you could not multiclass. Some classes couldn't be multiclassed...in fact you couldn't even MULTIclass, you could only dual-class. And even then you couldn't basically take some starting Paladin levels and throw in some Avenger, you were forced to take half and half of each.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I liked the pre-4e grid to the 4e, grid even if there was confusion over diagonal movement. The 4e grid is non-ecludian, since moving diagonally moves the same distance, as if all surfaces were round rather than flat.

 

[FireLance]

You're right it doesn't and I'm not sure why he says this.

Look guys, I'm fairly confident that obvious typo is obvious.