Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[Plageman]

As far as I know there is only two books that may present class options: Forgotten Realms PHB and Martial Power. Maybe there will be some new class option for planar characters in the Manual of the Planes.

From that we can expect some Divine / Arcane power handbook sometime next year, before the release of the PHB 2 with maybe Primal (Barbarian,Druid)/Ki(Monk)/Shadow(Necromancer)/Psionic(Psion) sources ?

I also expect some of these class to be pre-released in a Dragon issue before that date.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Which version of Battletech?

I blame Runequest.

The second, obviously not Battledroids or the simple boxed game, but the endless stream of setting and technical readout books that they put out for it once it got off the ground.

RuneQuest had lots of suplements, but it took years for them all to come out, Chaosium never got close to a book a month. TSR put out books /very/ slowly. After 11 years ('78-89), IIRC, AD&D consisted of PH, DMG, MM, Deities & Demigods, Fiend Folio, should-have-stayed-'earthed' Unearthed Arcana, MM2, Oriental Adventures (abominations), and the Wilderness & Dungeneer's Survival Guides. Nine hardbound books in 11 years. 2E had how many 'Complete' books?

 

[Bialaska]

My impression so far has been a bit blurry.

On one hand I like the whole combat versatility. But unfortunately that appears to be everything the new system is about. I do miss the many options for making a character from 3e. Fighter and Barbarian are both martial characters, but there is a different feel between the two types. Just like Cleric and Druid.

The one thing I lack the most though, is the non-combat stuff. Rituals can handle some of the options wizards had, but you don't have 10 minutes to conjure up a ritual to charm a the guard who's about to arrest you.

Combat has been made better, but other things have suffered for that. Not everything is about combat and fighting, but unfortunately it seems to be the policy that the new edition has embraced. In the end I guess the hack'n'slash campaigns will love 4th edition, but other campaigns with less focus on combat and more on other aspects will stick to 3.5.

 

[JohnSnow]

IAE, yeah, the F/MU is hard to pull off well, but it is a classic archetype for us old 1e-ers. And eladrin seem built for it. I looked at doing it the other way -- Wizard (Fighter), but it seems that fighters get a lot more from dabbling in magic than vice-versa. Melee abilities aren't useful when you've got crap for hit points and no armor proficiency. Scorching Burst/Encounter > Cleave/Encounter.

Ah, but some of us old 1e-ers actually remember the limitations of that system and don't look at it through rose-colored classes.

A 1e Fighter/magic-user:

- couldn't cast spells in armor (until they got elven chain).
- had more hit points than a mage, but fewer than a fighter.
- had a better to-hit chance than a magic-user, but not as good as a fighter.
- had the fighter's weapon skills (about a level behind after 1st).
- had the wizard's magic skills (about a level behind after 1st).

Given all of the above, I think Eladrin Wizard (Fighter Multiclass) is a better match for the old fighter/mage than the fighter/(wizard multiclass).

Assuming the standard array, here's what I'd do...

Eladrin Wizard
STR 13 CON 15 DEX 13 INT 17 WIS 12 CHA 10
Initiative: +1
AC 15 FORT 12 REF 13 WILL 13
Hit Points 25 Bloodied 12
Healing Surges: 8 (6)
Attacks:
Longsword +4 vs. AC
Magic Missile +3 vs. Reflex
Skills: Arcana +10; Athletics +7; Dungeoneering +6; History +8; Nature +8.
Feats: Armor Proficiency Leather (or Durable, for 2 extra healing surges).
Powers: Fey Step, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Magic Missile, Scorching Burst, Icy Terrain, Acid Arrow, Sleep(*).
Rituals: Animal Messenger, Silence, Tenser's Floating Disk.
Racial Features: Proficient with longsword, Fey Step, low-light vision.
Class Features: Implement Mastery (Wand), Cantrips, Spellbook.
Equipment: Leather Armor, Longsword, Spellbook, Wand.

At 2nd Level, take Shield and Feather Fall as your Utility Powers. Prepare Shield most of the time. This is the time to take Student of the Sword.

Now, he can gain a fighter encounter power at 4th-level. This character will never be a great defender, but he's far less "squishy" than most wizards. Which, in 1e at least, was the primary benefit of the fighter/magic-user. Well, that and the ability to be proficient in a decent weapon (the longsword proficiency takes care of that).

The other good 1st-level feat is Toughness, which would increase the wizard's hit points by 5, but I think the added recovery from having more healing surges (Durable) is a better choice. Or, better yet, not getting hit in the first place (Leather Armor proficiency).

But that's just how I see the old fighter/magic-user.

 

[Keltheos]

FASA was never consistent enough with their release cycles to drop a book every month. And for Battletech it was mostly scenarios and a new mech or two for factions (the remainder of the books being pure fluff). Believe me, I know. Sure, they'd announce release dates that seemed monthly, but things were almost always delayed 1-10 months.

Wizards definitely isn't going the 'book a month' model unless you consider scenarios/character sheets/DM screen 'books'. The next new 'book' for D&D isn't until October unless I'm reading the release schedule wrong.

But since they had 8 years to release material for 3.5 which added to combat and non-combat encounters/events/items/etc. I'll reserve judgment on how things will shape up until at least a couple of their add-on books are released. Until then it's the 'intro stuff' to get players started and not overwhelmed with whatever extras they want to add later.

 

[BASHMAN]

I don't mind TWF only giving a +1 to damage, and possible +1 AC & Ref. But what really bothers me is that Fighters should not do it.

Think of the name of the class. FIGHT-er. They should be THE BEST at fighting. Period. This would mean being able to use two weapons. But if a Fighter spends a feat on TWF, he is weakening himself-- the class feature that gives +1 to hit only works with weapon & shield or 2H Weapon. 2 weapons is not an option. That is made of lose.

I don't mind Rangers being the penultimate 2WF people- but fighters should have to sacrifice other bonuses just to do it.

 

[JDillard]

I the class feature that gives +1 to hit only works with weapon & shield or 2H Weapon. 2 weapons is not an option. That is made of lose.

This is an incorrect reading, I think. The power just says "Choose one handed weapons or two handed weapons and get a +1 bonus to hit when using your choice." Choose one-handed, and then TWF all you want.

 

[Njall]

I don't mind TWF only giving a +1 to damage, and possible +1 AC & Ref. But what really bothers me is that Fighters should not do it.

Think of the name of the class. FIGHT-er. They should be THE BEST at fighting. Period. This would mean being able to use two weapons. But if a Fighter spends a feat on TWF, he is weakening himself-- the class feature that gives +1 to hit only works with weapon & shield or 2H Weapon. 2 weapons is not an option. That is made of lose.

I don't mind Rangers being the penultimate 2WF people- but fighters should have to sacrifice other bonuses just to do it.

"Choose either one handed or two handed weapons. When using a weapon of your chosen style, you gain +1 to attack rolls".
Choose 1 handed weapons, and if you're using a 1 handed weapon, you gain the bonus even if you're fighting with two weapons.
Look at the weapon table: both longsword and shortsword fall under the "one handed military weapons" descriptor.
Where did you read that it only works with sword and board?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The one thing I lack the most though, is the non-combat stuff. Rituals can handle some of the options wizards had, but you don't have 10 minutes to conjure up a ritual to charm a the guard who's about to arrest you.

One question I've always had about these options is why the ability to charm the guard into letting you go so much better than the ability to use diplomacy to convince the guards to leave you alone?

Yes, one uses a spell and one doesn't. And one is much more powerful than the other. I just don't see that a game where the wizard comes up with some good lie to turn the guards away and they take off is so much worse than the one where he waves his hands in the air and the guards will now believe anything he say and leaves.

And that seems to be the main crux of the argument about how 4e is "too focused on combat". It always comes down to: "If I wanted to disguise myself quickly in 3e, I could cast a spell and look completely different. In 4e, if I want to disguise myself, I need to find something to disguise myself with or sneak out the back or something. There isn't a power in the book directly focused on saving me in that situation, so it is too combat focused."

I suppose there is one less option in that circumstance. However, it was always kind of a non-option anyways, wasn't it? You either use an illusion spell to nearly automatically succeed against anyone looking at you or you risked the entire party making rolls that only one person in the party could succeed on and be spotted by anyone who was looking.

 

[occam]

This. This is the post.

Agreed!

Can you win a thread on the first post?