What is wrong with 4E?

[WhatGravitas]

I am unimpressed.

Though their action point feature is rather nifty.

"Good Omens" is also pretty nifty - +5 power bonus on all attacks? This basically ensures that everything hits and this includes yourself. Which you can then burn on your best power, without fearing missing!

So calling them multiclassing feats is a bit like false advertising.

Sadly, yes.

Cheers, LT.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Gnomeworks.. its not 3e. Sorry.

Don't patronize me. Kthx.

It is, however, still multi-classing.

Nor, for that matter, do they suck in any mechanical or technical sense. We've already seen plenty of builds that use them to excellent effect.
You lose a small amount of your standard functionality to pick up versatility elsewhere.

Really? Oh really.

Go look at any paragon path. You'll notice that you get six benefits from doing so: three features, and three powers of varying type.

As a 4e character, you are automagically entitled to a paragon path at 11th level.

In order to actually multiclass (that is, to fill in another base class's name on your paragon path line on your sheet), you must spend four feats, and opt not to take a paragon path at 11th.

Instead, you can choose powers from the secondary class at the levels at which you'd gain paragon powers.

...interesting, did you notice something missing from that?

Oh, right, the three class features that you would've gotten!

Multiclassing < Anything else ever.

You don't get the same result that you do from 3e. So? 3e was *broken*.

As Kamikaze Midget would say, "The sins of the past edition do not excuse the sins of the next."

 

[GnomeWorks]

"Good Omens" is also pretty nifty - +5 power bonus on all attacks? This basically ensures that everything hits and this includes yourself. Which you can then burn on your best power, without fearing missing!

Well, your ranger friend who splinters armor and cascades his blades will be very pleased, I suppose.

Sadly, yes.

And I am a sad panda because of that.

A very sad panda.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Its a bit funny that you (the thread starter) only mentions what is left out, while skipping what is added (Dragonborn, Eladrin, Tiefling, Warlock)? Each class takes a lot more space now than before - except the full casters that take less space.

Tieflings aren't "new." They just moved from the MM to the PH.

"Eladrin" is just a fancy name for elves. Read the write-up if you don't believe me, it says it right in there.

Warlocks aren't "new." They're new to the core, but they're not conceptually new.

You might have an argument for the dragonborn. Since I feel that I've knocked down your other three, I'll grant you that one.

Spells - eh I mean powers - are much shorter in description than earlier and more to the point. You have a bit fewer of them, which makes it possible to actually have character sheets with all your spells on them, instead of rifling through the PHB and 132 splat books for the definition of spell x. I mean power x.

Yep. All of 'em deal damage.

And no, I don't think it'd really be possible to have the powers on the sheets. You need the full description. Because, honestly, can you tell me what Windmill of Doom does? Anvil of Doom? Hammer and Anvil? Could you honestly keep them separate, in your head? The names have so little correspondence to what is actually going on (and even that is often nebulous), it isn't even funny.

I agree that there are actually too few choices you have when selecting powers.

And they are far too limited. The vast majority of warlord powers are melee, when several of them could be ranged (Commander's Strike, I'm looking at you. Why can I only yell as far as I can poke people with my sword?).

I have run three test-sessions and I think the game ran very well. You have the right amount of abilities right at level 1 and before you get too tired of them, you get new powers/feats as you level. Its a bit like everybody playing a cleric power-wise. Which is good, I liked the 3.5 cleric. You could always pull out all the stops and go all-out offensive. Now every character can do that, unleashing all their daily powers if they feel its necessary.

...so everyone is CoDzilla? You are not improving my faith in the system.

 

[VannATLC]

Hmm, I'll have to grant you that Paragon Tier swap is a very poor choice. I wasn't looking at it, to be honest.

On the other hand, I don't think its a sin.

Its not broken.

 

[grimslade]

Don't patronize me. Kthx.

You have gnome in your name, it is a reflex. ;P

Some Snippage

Multiclassing < Anything else ever.

As Kamikaze Midget would say, "The sins of the past edition do not excuse the sins of the next."

Multiclassing in 3E is on the opposite spectrum from 4E. Way to good not to do and had many broken combos. 1E and 2E were not true muticlassing either unless you were a specific race and had level caps. dual Classing made you give up your previous class.

D&D is a class based game. 3E tried to go to an almost classless version. 4E wants to keep the class firmly present. The multiclass feats are weak by design. Heroic tier characters should be very undifferentiated. With the mc feats you open up other paragon paths, not the mc path. This is where the multiclass happens. Nifft has done up a dwarven infernal warlock into Iron Vanguard that is a frontline combatant not a distance striker, but is no more powerful than a straight warlock or rogue.
Mearls has said that you could almost get a classless with 4E. Everything is a power, just pick from the grab bag. The game that would result would be very different than D&D.
Laissez-faire multiclassing was sacrificed for balance. I am glad to see it gone, but mourn its passing with you.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Hmm, I'll have to grant you that Paragon Tier swap is a very poor choice. I wasn't looking at it, to be honest.

It really is.

On the other hand, I don't think its a sin.

Its not broken.

It's the antithesis of broken, which is almost as bad.

 

[GnomeWorks]

You have gnome in your name, it is a reflex. ;P

That wasn't even directed at you?

Multiclassing in 3E is on the opposite spectrum from 4E. Way to good not to do and had many broken combos. 1E and 2E were not true muticlassing either unless you were a specific race and had level caps. dual Classing made you give up your previous class.

You 4e people need to get your things together.

4e claims to have fixed multiclassing by making the gish a viable character concept, implying that 3.5 multiclassing was poor because gishes failed miserably.

Yet you're trying to claim here that 3.5 multiclassing was absurdly good.

...and it suddenly dawns on me that that isn't a binary thing. Hmm. I need to dwell on that.

D&D is a class based game. 3E tried to go to an almost classless version. 4E wants to keep the class firmly present. The multiclass feats are weak by design. Heroic tier characters should be very undifferentiated. With the mc feats you open up other paragon paths, not the mc path. This is where the multiclass happens. Nifft has done up a dwarven infernal warlock into Iron Vanguard that is a frontline combatant not a distance striker, but is no more powerful than a straight warlock or rogue.

4e says "You there, get in your class and stereotype and stay there."

This irks me to no end.

Laissez-faire multiclassing was sacrificed for balance. I am glad to see it gone, but mourn its passing with you.

There are many sad pandas today, I imagine.

 

[Xorn]

Interesting. My dmg and mm didn't get the wavy pages/slightly not closing problem, maybe because for some reason i did put them under a stack of other books and such after peruesing them.

My phb did though, not a big deal just kind of odd. Considering my group has a ritual "biting of the book" and other defacing initiation rituals for phb's, being a bit fatter is the least of its problems.

Is it like a "hot off the presses" thing? I got mine about a week ago so they couldn't have been that old.

Congrats, I stopped reading the thread just to reply.

Biting of the book? That is easily the funniest thing I have visualized all week.

 

[Aloïsius]

Tieflings aren't "new." They just moved from the MM to the PH.

"Eladrin" is just a fancy name for elves. Read the write-up if you don't believe me, it says it right in there.

Warlocks aren't "new." They're new to the core, but they're not conceptually new.

You might have an argument for the dragonborn. Since I feel that I've knocked down your other three, I'll grant you that one.

And the gnome just moved to the MM, and half-orc, barbarian, druid and monk are just non-core but they did not disappear...