Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3777428" data-attributes="member: 4937">If it starts at level 1, then it really wouldn't be multiclassing, would it?Seriously though, I think everyone (even people like me who don't think that the 4e is justified) want to see classes have more flexibility (while avoiding the problems of point buy).  In 3.0 you could have started play as a Paladin 0/Sorcerer 0 using the apprentice rules.  Droping them was a step backward. My personal wish list would include elimenating PrC's from the game in favor of more flexible base classes.  Paladin is a real stinker as a base class in terms of flexibility, because not only is it mechanically limited, but its really limited in terms of flexibility.  Something like the Holy Warrior class from BotR is much better.  Better yet, unify the Holy and Unholy warrior classes from that setting into a unfied 'Champion' class.   Better yet, use more copious spell descriptors to help DM/PC's build arbitary 'Champion' classes on the fly by picking a domain.A flexible enough 'Champion Class' and a sufficiently large feat tree would let you build a character that feels like the above as a single classed 'Champion'.I like the fighter as a class.  It's very good at what it does want to do and its very flexible.  If you started adding things to it, I think you'd have the opposite problem: 'What if I want to play a warrior that doesn't have these features'?   I've made some changes to fighters to make them more attractive as a long term option compared to a spell caster class, and I've given them some high end feats that practically only a fighter could qualify for that don't just enhance thier damage.  But ultimately, I consider fighter perhaps the best designed base class in the game.  There really isn't anything about a fighter's flexibility that you can't fix with the right feats, and that's how it should be.I admit that human is the most interesting race, but that is also how I think it should be.  I think you are really underestimating Dwarf as an option if you're never tempted from Human.   And I've seen some really effective Halfling characters.  I've made relatively few changes in the races.  About the only change is that Elfs are allowed to choose where to put thier +2 attribute bonus: dexterity, intelligence, or charisma.   Also, IMC longbow is an exotic weapon, so Elf is a pretty popular choice.Always been a difficult issue to deal with, and the only really effective solution is to assume that average humans, orcs, goblins etc have about 4HD and then scale up everything tougher than an orc or peasant from there.  That way if a wasp has 1 hp, it sorta makes since, a mouse isn't as tough as a house cat, and a house cat isn't tougher than a peasant.  But this of course causes so many new problems that so far as I know, no one has attempted it.   It sounds like 4e is going to try to solve this partially, by giving 'heroes' bonus hitpoints at 1st level.  I'm not sure how I feel about that as a solution.  I agree, but I'm not sure that this is the best example of what's wrong with the highly broken clunky spot/hide system.  In the case you describe, all you need is the DM to rule that the gaurd has turned away and so the character is no longer being observed.  Therefore a hide check is not needed - just a successful move silently check.   If you aren't being observed you aren't being observed.   Of course, there is a question of how you know you aren't being observed, and that's an example of how many different skill challenges can be involved in something 'simple'.  Guess you need those 'sense motive' (to know that the guard won't turn around) and 'spot' (to know that this is the only guard watching the courtyard) ranks after all.This is one of the things I've always hated about 'weapon specialization'.  It is so freaking limiting.  I guess its too late to remove it from the game, and I'm not sure that I would if I could, but sometimes I really wish you could because it has always caused lots of problems.I think mostly though we are on the same page but have different ideas on how to implement it.My list would include in addition to the above:1) Better craft resolution rules.2) Better spot/hide resolution.3) Better diplomacy resolution rules.4) An Evasion/Pursuit resolution subsystem along the lines of the 'Hot Pursuit' rules, but tweaked a little to clear up some of the wacky results of that system in a few cases.5) Additional universal combat manuevers: circle, parry, aggressive attack, clinch, throw (from a grapple), distract, etc. to allow characters to do things which they intuitively should be able to do.6) Better handling of the 'step' problem (characters in the middle of melee combat can step/move away from an attacker to leave that combat becoming 'unthreatened' even if thier opponent is conceptually still vigorously attacking them). 7) Longer better designed lists of core feats.8) 'Military Discipline' and 'Tactics' as new class exclusive skills for fighter types, that open up the oppurtunity for certain small advantages in combat situations.9) Explicit divine intervention rules.10) Rules for sacrifices and ritual magic.11) Rules for sacred sites and groves.12) Better environment/terrain rules in general.13) Fewer immunities and absolutes.   For example, detect evil should give you a chance to detect the evil - not be automatic (bring the Scrying skill back?).   Mind Blank should probably increase your save vs. mind effecting spells by +20, not make you immune.  Fire giants should have fire resistance 50 (or something), not necessarily be totally immune (save that for things that actually are made of nothing but fire, like say efreets and fire elementals).  Ect.  Going for less binary of a system at high levels.14) Better thought out game breaking spells (polymorph, any teleport, speak wt. the dead, detect evil, know alignment, raise dead, etc.)  15) Better challenge estimation.  In particular some addressing of factors that the current CR/EL estimation system really doesn't handle well (like equipment), if only openly discussing what those are.  Get rid of some of the more obviously broken issues, like for example that HD of dragon or outsider are objectively better in most cases than HD of classes, yet only count half as much for determining CR.  I realize that CR is going away as a concept, but even a flat XP system has to address these concepts.</blockquote>

Verification