Would you allow carte blanche power selection?

[Lord Mhoram]

So, would you allow this kind of play? I know there's the half-elf ability but that can easily be compensated.

Absolutely.

The driving interest in any character creation/design system for me is versatility (I play Hero as my primary game, natch). When I ran 3.x I had no multiclassing penalties, and used virtually every base and prestige class I could find (and the ultimate feat books too) - just for the ability of someone to tailor exactly what they wanted with those choices.

The idea you posted is one I have been thinking about for 4th.

I'd have to look at it when published, and decide on balance issues, but to me the concept is one worth striving for.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

And it really wouldn't have to change the flavor of the character.

Pulling stuff out of the air here-

Let's say Time Stop was a high level per day power for Wizards.

The Fighter takes it, and by Special Effect, it isn't magic, but the fighter going into Bullet Time.


To be honest, thinking about this, the idea of actually playing 4th ed (with this possibility, I'll still have to see the rules) went from probably never* to probably... if I can get this to work.


* I was still going to get the PH, I want to see how the new system works, and to steal any nifty ideas for my fantasy hero game.

 

[Wepwawet]

/facepalm

I don't know why I bother to post here. Won't be making that mistake again.

LOL
Please please keep posting
You have to admit that this detail makes sense. If a power says explicitly that you have to use this set of weapons that's it. Unless you use some other feat that allows you to change it.

Your idea is really interesting, and I'll definitely try it out. But it has to be done very carefully to keep it balanced. Starting with applying the rules strictly to the powers.

Another thing: giving the player high HP and access to many weapons and armor by picking the fighter class, while allowing him to choose any kind of power, will probably create something overpowered.

My question is, how could we define the "base class"? (I mean, the base stats)

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Under the current dictum of the rule in 3.5, a multiclassed Wizard/Rogue CAN sneak attack with a Melf's Acid Arrow if I am not mistaken. I don't see why this sort of odd coupling couldn't be used in the new edition.

 

[keterys]

Already considered... and sorta already doing it. I think you do have to factor in some details, but it really seems so easy to mix and match powers that I really think it'll be a piece of cake to do a lot of different character concepts or 'hybrid' builds.

 

[Mallus]

With the right group of players, sure. Balance is ultimately a product of participant consensus (and not the rules set) anyway.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

With the right group of players, sure. Balance is ultimately a product of participant consensus (and not the rules set) anyway.

I disagree immensely. My group loves to have balance amongst themselves. They are just incapable of creating it with most of the rulesets we've tried. Simply by following the rules they create imbalance between them.

 

[Mallus]

Simply by following the rules they create imbalance between them.

I think you might be agreeing with me

"Simply following the rules", IMNSHO rarely results in balance. Rule systems needs to be tweaked for the needs of the specific people playing, informal agreements between players and DM need to be made, etc. Balance comes out of playing the game (rules that work fine for some groups wreck hell w/others), talking things out,, recognizing what parts aren't working, then reaching a compromise on how to fix them.

If your group can do that they can make almost any system/variant/houserule balanced. If your group can't do those things, you'll have trouble, no matter how balanced and elegant the rules on the page are.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

"Simply following the rules", IMNSHO rarely results in balance. Rule systems needs to be tweaked for the needs of the specific people playing, informal agreements between players and DM need to be made, etc. Balance comes out of playing the game (rules that work fine for some groups wreck hell w/others), talking things out,, recognizing what parts aren't working, then reaching a compromise on how to fix them.

I'll second this. As mentioned previously I play Hero*. A point based system that can really be minmaxed (I've seen, and made some really scary builds in my time), but things that are "book legal" may not fit in the GMs campaign due to tone, or may not fit the group due to playstyle.

I love to tinker with systems and see what works and what doesn't - one of things that brought me please in 3.x was adding and adapting rules/classes/whathaveyou from other sources (I ended up using classes from core D&D, Unearthed arcana and 3rd party splats all together). Finding ways to tinker in 4th is likely going to be something I really enjoy. And this looks like a good one.


* I use Hero as an example because of the ease of minmaxing, it shows the extremes very well.

 

[Nifft]

Under the current dictum of the rule in 3.5, a multiclassed Wizard/Rogue CAN sneak attack with a Melf's Acid Arrow if I am not mistaken. I don't see why this sort of odd coupling couldn't be used in the new edition.

I'll bet there'll be spells that qualify as "light weapons", and thus could be used with Sneak Attack.

The real work will be in finding these combos that actually do have some synergy.

Cheers, -- N