So I have the Martial Powers book.

[Lizard]

Those aren't builds they are optional Class Features, there is a build for most Class Features, but you are not forced to take a build, just a particular class feature.

The line from class feature->build is pretty straight. When powers play off of class features and are much more useful with them than without them, not taking them requires a willful disregard of your characters ability to function.

It would be like choosing 2-weapon ranger, then only taking ranged Encounter and Daily powers. I suppose that the rules don't STOP you, but why would you? You can't build an (effective) mixed range/melee ranger; pick one. (with Martial Power, judging from what's been revealed, the choice becomes "Pick one of three", which is notably superior; I have no doubt it will, someday, be "Pick one of five" or "one of six". Point is, you make your pick, and then you're 90% done with choices for your character. Race, Class, Build, GO! This may be considered by many to be a feature, not a bug, and I do understand their arguments; what I don't understand is why they insist on trying to DENY it, instead of trying to SELL people on it as a Good Thing.)

 

[Lizard]

First off, the first official "expansion", in the form of Martial Power, isn't even out yet...so let's not jump to conclusions. Secondly, you're also assuming that a DM won't allow for some re-specing. Thirdly, you're assuming that all of the new powers will only be for one build. It's been specifically said here that while there's only one new build, there are powers for that build and the existing ones as well.

Sorry, I may have been unclear. Based on what I've heard -- and I freely admit this is incomplete -- you can't have a ranger who divides his AW/E/D powers between, say, ranged combat and managing his beast. You want a pet, you take the "I have a pet!" class feature, and then you pick your powers to support it. While I assume you can choose the "wrong" powers, it will be self-evident that they're wrong, and choosing them will mostly be an exercise in masochism (or sadism, if you like seeing the whole party die because you went out of your way to be sub-par.)

I'd love to be wrong, because it would mean 4e is moving away from a fixed price menu and towards an a la carte system, which can only be counted a good thing. In the long run, it's not relevant -- there WILL eventually be enough builds to cover any halfway plausible archetype. It's just that the design as it stands requires you to either wait for the "official" release or roll your own. (Mostly, it's the "class features" that are the problem; if builds were purely a matter of which POWERS you picked, the system would be far more flexible and interesting. As it is, though, for many classes, you pick your feature and IT picks your powers.)

 

[Lizard]

Uhh...I think you don't understand what he meant. He's saying you can't have a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Wizard/Cleric/Sorcerer anymore, like in 3.x Regardless of whether or not you can mix a single feat from a build, there are often some build specific things going on as well. For example, your choice of Two-blade Ranger vs Archer Ranger affects what Paragon Paths you can take.

Saying everything is massively silo'd goes a bit too far, but there are definite barriers in place to getting into the massive class mixing that 3.x had.

It's so nice when people READ what I write, instead of just responding to what they imagined I wrote...

Some classes have this more than others. Ranger is probably the most severe (and the one I know best since I'll be playing one in a few weeks and have thus been studying my options, or lack thereof...I mean, I had to multiclass to Warlord to get a PP that fitted my character concept, though not much else in Warlord does...).

I miss the ability to build a character from a wide assortment of pieces, beginning with a concept and ending with something which mechanically fits that concept. Instead, I need to pick a build, and then create a character AROUND the build. To a lot of people, this is just fine, a simpler and cleaner method that reduces the risk of Pun-Pun. To me, it's limiting, and I think that the game designers had a fear of the Character Optimization boards which limited their design choices unnecessarily. 99% of the nonsense from those boards would never see actual play under a halfway competent DM; they're pure number crunching insanity.

(I mean, I do see some of the issues with 3e which led to 4e; if I have one more combat where the first thing everyone does is either summon, buff, or summon AND buff, I will scream...)

 

[Lizard]

Go back and read his actual words. Not your vision of what his words should have been had he been making a non-insane argument.

The claim that things like implement choice or the selection of "brutal scoundrel" versus "artful dodger" "pretty much define the path your character will take for life" isn't something I made up and attributed to him. Ditto the rest. He's not arguing that you can't make a paladin/ranger/fighter/wizard, he's arguing, quite clearly and with simple, easy to understand words, that you can't even mix a little bit of artful dodger style rogue with brutal scoundrel style rogue. The fact that you explicitly can, and that he must know this because he is not an idiot, enrages me when he chooses to say so anyways.

You CAN do it, it's just usually unwise. You'll get a lot more bang for your buck not mixing. You can walk off the road... a little bit... if you want to, but the road is very clearly marked and there's high fences to all sides.

To get back to this sub-thread... the fact that a feat requires the Martial power source (as we've been told some do) means it CAN'T be taken by the most militant of Paladins or melee Clerics, even though it might perfectly fit their character concept. (I do not think multiclassing changes your Power Source, though I may be wrong in that interpretation.) Many Fighter powers are perfectly useful for a Paladin, and The Math(tm) means it probably wouldn't be unbalancing to allow him to pick them. Personally, I think the ideal system would be to have Exploits, Spells, and Prayers, and just define which classes can pick from which -- i.e, Paladins could pick Exploits and Prayers, wizards only Spells, swordmages Spells and Exploits. Looking at the game, it seems like they were halfway down the road to Classless D&D, and then backpedaled.

 

[Rechan]

I saw Martial Power and Draconomicon in a Books-A-Million today.

I only got a glance at the feats section. Lotsa feats. The multi-class feats only seem to give you class features. Some of them require you to take the paragon multi-class option (the Fighter one gives you Fighter Superiority if you take this feat after the paragon multi-class).

 

[Lizard]

I saw Martial Power and Draconomicon in a Books-A-Million today.

I only got a glance at the feats section. Lotsa feats. The multi-class feats only seem to give you class features. Some of them require you to take the paragon multi-class option (the Fighter one gives you Fighter Superiority if you take this feat after the paragon multi-class).

See, that's actually pretty cool. The only problem is, at least as I understand the rules currently, you often want to gain a class feature as a prereq for a PP... which you can't if you multiclass instead of taking a PP... but even so, thinking of this and what I do know about various classes, I see the Paragon Tier getting a LOT more interesting in terms of the kinds of concepts you can play with....

It does open up a lot more possibilities, and the (initial) lack of possibilities was my biggest issue w/4e. I think they've done a very good job of expanding the game post-core, and I'm glad my DM put off his 4e game until December, so I can use MP to my advantage. (And run SOTC during the 'off weeks'...loves me some FATE system...)

 

[Rechan]

(And run SOTC during the 'off weeks'...loves me some FATE system...)

Man after my heart.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I miss the ability to build a character from a wide assortment of pieces, beginning with a concept and ending with something which mechanically fits that concept.

I would note that 3E is, in the grand history of D&D, the 'outlier' in this regard--every other version, if you're sticking close to 'core', has required fitting a concept into a fairly narrow archetype. (Later 2E provided ways to work around this, true, and pre-3E, the mechanics were often loose enough to fudge it or bolt on some other way to handle it outside of the combat and magic system.)
IMO, 3E was trying to fit HERO-esque character design into a D&D paradigm. 4E, meanwhile, is trying to fit HERO-esque effects-based powers and results into a D&D paradigm, which may explain some of the difficulty people are having with wrapping their heads around it.

(I mean, I do see some of the issues with 3e which led to 4e; if I have one more combat where the first thing everyone does is either summon, buff, or summon AND buff, I will scream...)

Question for you as an old HERO-head, Lizard: Did you ever see this problem in Fantasy HERO games? If not, it may be that the problem is that something about 3E made summons and buffs too cost-effective, as opposed to the concepts being broken at the root.

 

[Hawke]

I know there's 40 of them... but I'm curious about the Paragon Path chapter organization. Is it alphabetical? Is it by class that can use it (with maybe racial paragons at the end)?

I have a Ranger player that is dying to know (Battlefield Archer and Highland Scout or whatever the FR one is just don't do it for him) about the ranger ones... I'm hoping to use that to my advantage and convince him to buy a copy for me

 

[Lizard]

I
IMO, 3E was trying to fit HERO-esque character design into a D&D paradigm. 4E, meanwhile, is trying to fit HERO-esque effects-based powers and results into a D&D paradigm, which may explain some of the difficulty people are having with wrapping their heads around it.

A very good summary. Once I clued in that 4e powers basically say "The following changes happen to statistics in the game; YOU figure out why/how", it made a lot more sense. There's no essential connection between the power and the game world; indeed, you can look at each power as, in essence, a form of player plot control. The player can declare "This happens!"; the DM and the player figure out how to fit it into the story.

Question for you as an old HERO-head, Lizard: Did you ever see this problem in Fantasy HERO games? If not, it may be that the problem is that something about 3E made summons and buffs too cost-effective, as opposed to the concepts being broken at the root.

Actually, summoning in HERO can be very nasty, with x2 monsters for +5 points; however, the nightmare of tracking and creating all those summoned creatures usually kept players from trying it too much. And Aid was broken in Hero for quite a long time, again requiring a lot of GM smackdown to keep in place. So that might not be the best example of how to do it right. What 4e does is sort of like what HERO did back in the days before there WAS a summon power; you have an effect like "Energy blast 6d6" and you describe it as "A summoned dragon appears and breathes on the target".

(I haven't played H5 yet, so I don't know if the Summon and Aid powers are better balanced...)