D&D 4E What's Wrong With 4e Simply Put

[Lonely Tylenol]

Second, the aim of any character build mechanic should be to make it as hard as possible for players, in pursuit of a legitimate character concept, to build a second-rate character. There is nothing illegitimate about the concept "casts a little bit, fights a little bit" - just see Gandalf, for example. It is a flaw in 3E that it is incredibly easy to build a second-rate character in pursuit of that concept.

Or to put it another way, why is it good for the game that players only get to play effective PCs if those PCs are specialists?

This bears repeating. The problem with many multiclass combinations is not that they're less effective at something in particular compared to a specialist. It's that they're less effective overall compared to a specialist or to a more optimal multiclass combination (e.g. fighter/barbarian). If a specialist or optimal multiclass is a 10, they're usually somewhere around a 5 or 6. That's a problem. Ideally, any multiclass combo should be as good a character as any other multiclass combo, and these should be as good as any specialist...overall. The benefits of multiclassing often do not outweigh the drawbacks. The benefits should, of course, exactly balance the drawbacks, to make multiclass characters just as viable as single-class characters, no matter what the multiclass concept is supposed to be.

This is the reason why classes like Mystic Theurge, Ultimate Magus, and feats like Ascetic Knight, etc. exist. They artificially supplement known substandard multiclass combinations, so that they are brought more in line with the power levels of good multiclass combos and single-classed characters. The idea is that if you build a better multiclass system, you don't have to patch it with things like these.

 

[Cadfan]

This is the reason why classes like Mystic Theurge, Ultimate Magus, and feats like Ascetic Knight, etc. exist. They artificially supplement known substandard multiclass combinations, so that they are brought more in line with the power levels of good multiclass combos and single-classed characters. The idea is that if you build a better multiclass system, you don't have to patch it with things like these.

I agree with most of what you wrote, except I don't think its fair to say that those classes are "artificially" supplementing the power level of poor multiclass combos.

A multiclassing system is really hard to write, especially if you have disparate subsystems for different types of characters that all have to be integrated. And as the number of base classes rises, you end up facing a power rule problem as the number of possible combinations rises even faster.

In 3e, feats and prestige classes were built right into the game at a very foundational level. I don't see a problem with using them to ensure that certain multiclass combinations remain viable even though they involve combining classes which otherwise integrate poorly.

The only flaw I saw in the way 3e handled that aspect of its design is that it never called the issue out explicitly. A player could draw conclusions pretty well- if you wanted a wizard/cleric multiclass character, and you knew of the existence of the Mystic Theurge, you basically knew that was the PRC that WOTC expected you to take. But I would have preferred a direct, explicit statement in the multiclass section: "Some class combinations do not work well together. Often, a prestige class exists which blends the advantages of two different classes in a more effective manner than is available with a simple multiclass character. If you are considering multiclassing your character, check with your DM about the availability of a prestige class that will help you accomplish your character's goals more effectively."

 

[Seeten]

I don't want a situation where everyone is forced to get into deep characters and have periodic diceless sessions of pure intrigue; it might not be your style. Play a dungeon, kill stuff, and go home. Cool...it is your game. However, I also don't want a situation where the option is stripped from the game, requiring mounds of house rules to reinsert an aspect that has (at least for some gamers) brought fun to the table.

Can you explain how houserules would be required for anyone to roleplay? My mind boggles at the idea. Maybe my imagination is THAT bad, but I cant understand how rules would be required to *allow* people to roleplay.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

"Some class combinations do not work well together. Often, a prestige class exists which blends the advantages of two different classes in a more effective manner than is available with a simple multiclass character. If you are considering multiclassing your character, check with your DM about the availability of a prestige class that will help you accomplish your character's goals more effectively."

Or: "If you are considering multiclassing and are concerned about Character Disfunction, ask your DM about Prestige Classes. Prestige Classes may be able to prevent the embarassment of CD. Side effects of Prestige Classes may include periodic suboptimal selection of feats and skills, and occasional feelings of Munchkinism. Prestige Classes are only available through your DM, so ask about it today."

 

[WayneLigon]

To use an age-old example: Gandalf didn't cast a lot of spells. But he fought with his Sword and Staff. He didn't sit back in the background being ineffective. He was in the thick of combat. Gandalf might not be even close to any D&D wizard, but he is one example of how rare spellcasting can work from a players perspective: Let the character do something else effectively.

Not to pick on you specifically, but this opens up a discussion that's been percolating in my brain for some time now.

Gandalf is actually an astoundingly poor example to bring into any discussion of D&D spellcasting becasue Gandalf is not what you'd consider a 'player character'. He's a GM plot device that enables certain things to happen, such as the defeat of the Balrog, so the real PC's - the rest of the Fellowship - get to see some cool stuff and not die. Besides being a great example of why certain great books would make very poor games, Galdalf is constrained in ways that are only hinted at. He's not just a mortal man who has studied lore to the point that he can do Cool Stuff, he's basically a demigod figure that - if he misuses his power or uses it too much - allows the Enemy similar free reign in what he can do.

You see this a lot in classical high fantasy literature; sure he could probably have wiped out an orc army but that would give Sauron similar license to cut loose on the Armies of the West. Too much of that stuff and they'd literally break the world.

Now this is very cool in the books but in a game where people expect a great deal more latitude in what they are allowed to do, it doesn't play very well. We're simply ignorant as to the degree of spellcasting ability Galdalf has at his disposal as oppossed to what we see in the canon, which is what he's allowed to do by higher powers. (This is the major flaw in the amazingly silly early D&D article saying that Gandalf is a fifth-level MU). We never get to see what he's actually capable of. Were he not constrained by the higher powers, I suspect he'd be able to do pretty much anything he wanted to do.

 

[Cadfan]

Or: "If you are considering multiclassing and are concerned about Character Disfunction, ask your DM about Prestige Classes. Prestige Classes may be able to prevent the embarassment of CD. Side effects of Prestige Classes may include periodic suboptimal selection of feats and skills, and occasional feelings of Munchkinism. Prestige Classes are only available through your DM, so ask about it today."

Exactly!

 

[Rechan]

Certainly WtF's take of werewolves as creatures neither wholly men nor spirit, guarding their territories and keeping the shadow world of spirits and the physical world in balance, is more interesting than the furry, pre-doomed eco-guerillas of WtA.

And I still find the limited number of tribes stifling and lame.

First of all, there are five tribes (Iron Masters, Blood Talons, Storm Lords, Bone Shadows and Hunters in Darkness), not four, plus the tribeless Ghost Wolves.

Yes, I know there are five tribes. I was being sarcastic because I consider one tribe - the one that venerates Fenris and has turned on the other four - an NPC tribe.

 

[Rechan]

I noticed they gave wizards some hand-to-hand powers. I saw "Wizard Strike" being playtested, which was a melee strike which knocks enemies back.

Given that in the "Tomb under the Tor" playtest you're referencing, the wizard pushed two wolves away at that time, I got the impression that the "Wizard Strike" isn't a melee attack at all, but something like a cone-shaped attack that has a knockback effect.

There wasn't anything in there that said it was a melee attack.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

And I still find the limited number of tribes stifling and lame.

Suit yourself. I will repeat what I said earlier, though: those five tribes are each much broader than the tribes in WtA, and as they're something you choose, instead of being born into, are less restrictive.

Yes, I know there are five tribes. I was being sarcastic because I consider one tribe - the one that venerates Fenris and has turned on the other four - an NPC tribe.

Blood Talons have not, to the best of my understanding, "turned on the other four". Surely you're not confusing them with the Pure?

 

[Rechan]

Suit yourself. I will repeat what I said earlier, though: those five tribes are each much broader than the tribes in WtA, and as they're something you choose, instead of being born into, are less restrictive.

I understand that. But going from 12 to 5, especially 5 with really "Meh" philosophies, is a step Back to me.

Blood Talons have not, to the best of my understanding, "turned on the other four". Surely you're not confusing them with the Pure?

I seem to recall the tribe that venerates the Big Nasty Wolf God/Messiah/Paragon didn't much care to group with the other tribes.