Rule of Three: March 13

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.

That's one side of the coin.

The other is that multi-classing can lead to a proliferation of min-maxing, rather than using it to support an archetype.


So, how do you make multi-classing flexible enough to be effectively used as an archetype supporting tool, and limit it's min-maxing potential...?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's one side of the coin.

The other is that multi-classing can lead to a proliferation of min-maxing, rather than using it to support an archetype.


So, how do you make multi-classing flexible enough to be effectively used as an archetype supporting tool, and limit it's min-maxing potential...?

Limit the number of times you can multiclass.
Limit the bonuses received from multiclassing.
Bring back class alignments to prevent certain combinations.

A class should, in general be fine on it's own merits. Multiclassing should represent the PC wanting to grow and learn new subjects and explore new ways of life, not a requirement because every class is half-baked to the point that you NEED to multiclass to even be effective, or compete at higher levels.
 

Having played Rogue Trader, I now love critical hits. Luke Skywalker got to lose a hand and get a magical prosthesis; why the hell can't I?

As for interrupts, I'd say it's reasonable to have some sort of option -- spell, stance, whatever -- that lets you spend a standard action now to do something, as well as have a single specific reaction prepared.

Like, "Knight's Defense" or something. Make a melee attack, and you can hit anyone who tries to move past you or attack your allies.

Or "Inquisitor's Glare." You make a weak psychic attack against a specific enemy spellcaster, and then you can try to counterspell anything he casts on his next turn.

Or "Zen Poise." You get a bonus to defenses, and whenever anyone misses you, you can riposte against them.

But you have to consciously choose to turn on these abilities, and if you don't, you don't have to worry about reactions.
 

We determined that in almost every case, a player's turn takes time because they don't know their PC, they don't know the rules, or they aren't paying attention.

Welcome to role-playing games.

Some of my favorite gamers to play with have very little interest in learning the rules, because the rules bore them. Those same players are most likely to try the crazy stunts and imaginative solutions that make for great moments at the gaming table. I'm not interested in a game that deems those players Unworthy and refuses to consider them in the design process.

Some players aren't all that into combat and don't pay much attention after "Roll initiative." But they come alive when roleplaying, and make things fun for everybody. I'm not interested in a game that deems those players Unworthy, either.

And most of the folks I play with enjoy some kibbitzing and joking around. I'm not interested in a game that demands I treat every moment as Serious Business.

Now, obviously there are limits to how much the system should cater to such players. But it should be resilient to them, because they're going to be there, especially when bringing newbies into the game. One player who doesn't know the rules should not slow the entire table to a crawl--and other editions have done much, much better at this than 4E. I remember one evening when I took my then-3E group and put them through a BD&D adventure. I was the only one who had so much as cracked a TSR rulebook before that night, and it had been almost twenty years since my last BD&D game. Starting level was in the 8-9 range and the party included spellcasters. We only had one copy of the rules for the entire table. And yet they made up characters and we blasted through that adventure at Ludicrous Speed. There must have been a dozen fights, and chargen, and exploration, and roleplaying, in maybe three hours.
 
Last edited:


Save or Die makes combat faster. You may pay for that speed later by dealing with the consequences, but it definitely averages out to faster play.

Heck, in our AD&D days, we'd play with 12 people. When someone died, they got to run a set of monsters or a key monster or NPC. Within 15 minutes of an assault on a castle, the party wizard was disintergrated. He started playing the enemy wizard, and managed to kill 4 or 5 other characters over the next hour, before the survivors nailed him. (It was this huge running battle, basically a whole D&D adventure as almost non-stop combat.) Whatever else it was, it was fast. :p
 

I think it is a good idea to let the core class features build up. I hope, that the hp are set right.
Otherwise, I´d rather have Level 0, Level 1/2 and then level 1.
 

Having played Rogue Trader, I now love critical hits. Luke Skywalker got to lose a hand and get a magical prosthesis; why the hell can't I?

Luke Skywalker, as awesome as he is, didn't fight to the death with numerous deadly foes multiple times per day every day for months or years on end.

As people have said, 4e combat is very fast... as long as everyone knows what they are doing, what's going on, and what options they have. The trick is that everyone at the table needs to have this knowledge and if one person decides it's cooler to carry on texting than pay attention it brings down the game experience of everyone else much harder. If that same person were playing a Fightdurr he could probably still conduct his combat in a reasonable amount of time.

Don't take this as me defending the Fightdurr play style though. It's not (and shouldn't be) the job of the system to compensate for people who have no interest in playing it.

I'd maybe even go farther at bringing more interrupts into the system. Let players choose between blocking with their shield, parrying with their weapon, or jumping out of the way of an attack.
 

I think Immediate actions are a critical part of the game. They are what make D&D combat interesting. I don't think I would be willing to sacrifice interesting and exciting combat in favor of slightly faster, but far less interesting combat.
 

Someone on ENWorld has a sig about players generally stumbling along indecisively until initiative is rolled when they all turn into Sun Tzu...
 

Remove ads

Top