What is wrong with 4E?

[Spatula]

3e doesn't support life-changing career changes, either, unless your new career just happens to synergize with your old one. Sure, you can abandon being a fighter and start advancing as a wizard, but there are a couple of problems. You're level F+1, need a corresponding amount of XP to level up, you're facing CR > F+1 threats, and you have all the amazing combat power of a 1st level wizard. And can't cast your useless spells in armor without a heavy failure %. Not that you'd be wearing armor, since you gave up being a fighter and all. In some kind of solo game it doesn't matter since the DM is tailoring threats just for you to face, but in a group situation, which is to say the normal situation, the group generally wants each member to pull their own weight.

It looks nice on paper, doesn't work so well in practice outside of the effective class combos (mixing non-monk martial classes, generally).

 

[Intense_Interest]

Its irrelevant to the example I posted.

And had you used 3.X and made him a Ftr/BattleSorc or Ftr/WarMage, you could have done essentially the same thing but with more spells.

You were posting an example without a thesis. I responded to the actual thesis. In no way did you contradict the "Neither Dabbler nor Mashup" in the block-o-text.

Why would I make him a BattleSorc or WarMage to gain abilities that I don't need? Does that make him a better person within the role I gave him, or does it weaken him? And if it makes him a better person absolutely, doesn't that break the comparable power constant? (the point you've been dancing around for pages now)

I have no interest in retraining rules. Someone who profoundly changes his life probably does have his primary skillset atrophy with time, but he doesn't lose everything completely.

Then HE DIDN'T MAKE A COMPLETE CHANGE THEN, DID HE? He's a dabbler by any other name.

However, if said warlord worked his way up the ranks from a field soldier to a leader of men, then retired as I stated, then most definitely he is no dabbler. He earned the first position through skill and force of arms, and should be allowed to advance as far in his second profession as far as he can.

MJ on the Wizards would like a word with you.

These are ADVENTURERS, who have to be at their peak performance to keep up with the Dark and Scary world around them. Much like retired athletes are probably characters with an entire new set of attributes.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You were posting an example without a thesis. I responded to the actual thesis. In no way did you contradict the "Neither Dabbler nor Mashup" in the block-o-text.

I most certainly did give you a thesis while contradicting you- the PC entering the Cleric profession in 3.X is a fully capable member of both classes (in the context of his levels), wheras the 4Ed PC is not (he's not a spellcaster or divine channeller- IMHO, quintessential abilities for clerics).

(Upon further thought, I suppose we could have a differing definition of "mashup.")

Why would I make him a BattleSorc or WarMage to gain abilities that I don't need?

I was illustrating that its possible to do that PC style within 3.X, after pointing out some PC types are not possible in 4Ed.

Someone who profoundly changes his life probably does have his primary skillset atrophy with time, but he doesn't lose everything completely.

Then HE DIDN'T MAKE A COMPLETE CHANGE THEN, DID HE? He's a dabbler by any other name.

So a person who disavows his former life to become something else has to forget everything about his former life in order to make a complete change, then?

I personally know at least a few soldiers who are now Catholic monks who would beg to differ.

So would historical figures like St. Paul, St. Francis of Assissi, St. Katherine Drexel, Siddhartha Gautama, Cat Stevens, Audie Murphy, Andrew Carnagie and Brian May, who all made significant life changes (albeit not neccessarily into a more religious lifestyle).

And even if they are, 4Ed doesn't support the PC who "dabbled" first- especially in a variety of fields- before finding his true calling.

3e doesn't support life-changing career changes, either, unless your new career just happens to synergize with your old one. Sure, you can abandon being a fighter and start advancing as a wizard, but there are a couple of problems.

Again, I don't care about synergy- someone who splits his time between warcraft and spellcraft will eventually suffer in comparison to one who focuses on one or the other.

That said, it does it much better than 4Ed does.

Assume, arguendo, that Intense_Interest is right an you have to abandon warcraft to adopt spellcraft (for example) in order to simulate a life changing career.

In 3.X, you simply stop leveling in the former class- the XP penalty (if the DM enforces it), simply reflects your later start in the new field. (Michal Jordan never did master baseball).

In 4Ed, your primary class is your primary class forever, barring retraining rules...which are also available in 3.X.

 

[hong]

Again, I don't care about synergy-

That's nice. Others do.

 

[Intense_Interest]

I most certainly did give you a thesis while contradicting you- the PC entering the Cleric profession in 3.X is a fully capable member of both classes (in the context of his levels), wheras the 4Ed PC is not (he's not a spellcaster or divine channeller- IMHO, quintessential abilities for clerics).

(Upon further thought, I suppose we could have a differing definition of "mashup.")

I was illustrating that its possible to do that PC style within 3.X, after pointing out some PC types are not possible in 4Ed.

I think so, considering that what you call a Mashup is-

1- Now a 4E Base Class
2- Either house ruled or unreleased at the moment (gotta sell PHB 2 somehow)

"It isn't multiclassing" = Sacred Cow about what we call a combination of different powers.

So a person who disavows his former life to become something else has to forget everything about his former life in order to make a complete change, then?

I personally know at least a few soldiers who are now Catholic monks who would beg to differ.

Do those catholic monks still have 18 STR? Or did their change also bring about a change in what they were?

And even if they are, 4Ed doesn't support the PC who "dabbled" first- especially in a variety of fields- before finding his true calling.

Dabble into the Jack of All Trades base class. Problem solved.

Again, I don't care about synergy- someone who splits his time between warcraft and spellcraft will eventually suffer in comparison to one who focuses on one or the other.

That said, it does it much better than 4Ed does.

Multiclassing needs to suck now? There isn't a granularity between "good" and "not good" that isn't either Dabble or Mashup or New Character.

Assume, arguendo, that Intense_Interest is right an you have to abandon warcraft to adopt spellcraft (for example) in order to simulate a life changing career.

In 3.X, you simply stop leveling in the former class- the XP penalty (if the DM enforces it), simply reflects your later start in the new field. (Michal Jordan never did master baseball).

MJ level 30 Demigod of Basketball (30 Dex)
MJ level 1 Baseball player (10 Dex)
MJ level 30 Demigod of Basketball (30 Dex)
MJ level 1 Executive (18 Dex)
MJ level 20 Paragon of Basketball (24 Dex)

 

[DaveMage]

I stand corrected.

To be fair, however, I saw that coming. Shazam!

W.P.

 

[pemerton]

I would argue that a powerful Warlord or Daimyo who retires and spends the next 40 years of his life as a Monk is no mere dabbler.

If the main point of the character is to suddenly take up arms again to demonstrate his lingering samuria awesomeness (a bit like Lancelot in one of the late scenes of the 1981 Excalibur) then 4e captures it quite well. And this would seem to be the main genre trope that we might want to capture.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If the main point of the character (mechanically) is that he was once an armed warrior who has retired from the military and has now become

1) a holy man who is also an equally credible threat as an unarmed warrior,

2) a more powerful arcane spellcaster

3) both 1 and 2

4) etc.

then 4Ed does not.