Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 4285379" data-attributes="member: 15538">I can't make a dabbler. Even a half-elf multiclasser is still essentially a primary role, a subordinate role, and a splash of a different aesthetic. Some say "Feature, not bug," but dabblers can be very effective and fun if you choose good synergies. Further, while the encounter game seems to favor the single-class character, the truth is that over the long haul, simply having options is usually pound for pound a better option than super specialization. I can't run many or even most classic adventures without homebrewing monsters. Why? Monsters are either missing from the first MM, or have been moved to a different power level. For instance, orcs are no longer 1 HD beasties. I can't expect the books to tell me what a power does. There is no question what its game effect is, but why? What circumstances would prevent it from working? 4e can't run balanced skill-based challenges. Note I say balanced. It can handle skill use, but there is no "skill class" and no way to specialize in skills. Thus, skill based encounters arbitrarily favor whoever picked that skill, and your combat abilities have no relation to your skills. Thus, a classic trapfinding rogue turns into either a self-nerf or a character with strengths that were not part of their original archetype. 4e marks the return of the Non Weapon Proficiency, albeit broader in scope, or perhaps more similarly, the return of the Cyclopedia skills system. Skills are considered irrelevant to balance, an assumption tested by games like GURPS, Runequest, and so forth. 4e won't let you buck stereotype. No rapier wielding fighters, no dual-wielding clerics, no greataxe wielding rangers, no crossbow ace wizards, and so forth. 4e is not an easy plug and play for new classes. In 3e, you could usually build a class or prestige class around one new ability concept, then pepper it with abilities stolen from other classes, massage the skill list, then set BAB, hit die, and Saves. Done. A new class for 4e means taking a new concept, then devising dozens of unique powers, many of them with unpredictable synergies with existing powers. Further, with characters usually sticking to 3 ability scores, you have to make sure the class works with a reasonable ability score spread. 4e is not designed for "what if." Just as an example, I once let my 6th level party get ahold of a unique magic item, the Crown of Eternal Majesty. I thought it would be interesting to tempt them with power, and to see how they would try to hold on to or dispose of the dangerous item. The item cast Control Undead 2/day at 20th level, and allowed the user to create skeletons or zombies 1/week without the use of any material components; it also boosted Cha checks. It had a value in the tens of thousands of gold pieces. Under 4e, this is one of the naughtiest things I could do. It didn't mesh with 3e's balance goals, either, but there were no "parcels" or presumed capabilities to deal with, just a nebulous concept of PC wealth. The GM giveth, the GM taketh away. Back in AD&D, you never knew when a longsword +3 would just pop up in random treasure. Often times, the acquisition of a magical item and the resultant onslaught of Ultimate Power and PC greed was a story in itself. It was fun, sometimes, to give out of depth treasures, or to slip in utterly dangerous monsters to be avoided at all costs. There was no sense you were breaking the game by introducing what were essentially strategic puzzles. Monty Haul gaming was a sign of a pathological game, but there was nothing preventing random acts of generosity or disguised sadism.</blockquote>

Verification