Rule of Three: March 13

[tlantl]

Originally Posted by Rodney Thompson

..., we're looking at having the classes gradually layer in more capabilities over the first two or three levels, rather than providing a large number of class features at level 1, so that players new to the class have a short period of time to learn the basics of their class through play. Experienced players could simply start at 3rd level if they want to leap right into a more advanced starting experience.

This got me wondering about multiclassing in those early levels and taking new classes later on. All I can see is a bunch of really incomplete and weak characters starting out and staying that way for a long time.

It would hamper those who like to take only one level in a class just for the added power it gave in 3e/pathfinder.

 

[Hassassin]

This got me wondering about multiclassing in those early levels and taking new classes later on. All I can see is a bunch of really incomplete and weak characters starting out and staying that way for a long time.

It would hamper those who like to take only one level in a class just for the added power it gave in 3e/pathfinder.

Are you saying that's a bad thing?

 

[avin]

Lots of games start at level 3 or more, I see no problem in that.

It seems that Wotc is trying to soften up learning curve and give players the sense every level has something cool to grap... maybe.

 

[avin]

This got me wondering about multiclassing in those early levels and taking new classes later on.

It's a personal opinion, but I think multiclass must stay out of the game entirely, or at least stay away from core.

 

[Hassassin]

It's a personal opinion, but I think multiclass must stay out of the game entirely, or at least stay away from core.

I completely disagree. With flexible multi-classing and a few classes you can cover a huge number of archetypes. Lack of multi-classing just encourages needless class proliferation.

 

[ExploderWizard]

1) As long as they are tucked away in their own little optional module I'm fine with it.

2) Interrupts need to go away. If the general pace of combat picks up and they don't last 45 min to an hour then we won't miss them. A return to simple initiative on a d6 rolled each round could help break up the monotony of wating for a static turn to come around. IME this type of init system results in a fair number of simultaneous action rounds which are very exciting.

3) If the plan is to make levels 1 and 2 simple and pile on the fiddly crap as core for upper levels count me out. I think there should be options for more complex play right from the start AND the option to keep the game simpler even at the higher levels. If the modularity of the rules is applied evenly it can be done.

 

[tlantl]

Are you saying that's a bad thing?

I guess, in a way, it could be. Three classes could take nine levels to fully realize your true potential. If those nine levels are the best the game has to offer then it could be a really bad thing.

 

[Andor]

I guess, in a way, it could be. Three classes could take nine levels to fully realize your true potential. If those nine levels are the best the game has to offer then it could be a really bad thing.

So, if at the end of the best levels of the game you have fully realized your true potential, that's a bad thing?

Do not grok.

Could you explain this to me? Are you saying you want to start at full potential? Where do you go from there?

 

[Ahnehnois]

It sounds like they're talking about making 1st level characters weaker (good), leaving crit charts optional (good), and thinking about the implementation of out of turn actions (read Trailblazer!).

 

[dkyle]

Saves (pre-4E) are really only superficially active, and fundamentally very different immediate reactions/interrupts. I would be disappointed to see immediate actions go away, and saves be treated like they're some kind of replacement.

A Save is mechanically equivalent to the spell attack rolls in 4E. I suppose some might feel more "involved" if they're rolling the die, but it takes only a minimal understanding of the game to understand how illusory that involvement really is. You're rolling the die instead of the DM. That's all. A shame that they're abandoning a completely sensible simplification (spells are attacks, just like everything else) that does nothing but make the game easier to learn, but without removing any actual depth, for the sake of such a superficial "involvement". And why should spells be the only things opposed by "active" defenses, anyway?

Overall, I've not seen much problem with immediates in 4E. The one-per-round limit keeps them in check, and their presence adds a lot to the game.