Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuzzlewump" data-source="post: 4299872" data-attributes="member: 63214">I'm not sure I follow. How does defining the roles then building classes from those roles lock down or restrict anything? The classes have a role as they always have, and can multiclass out of that role. Did you mean that classes within the same role feel the same? Well, I'm not sure, but I think there is quite a bit of difference between a warlord and a cleric. Their powers simply do different things, even if achieving the same thematic goal of support. Is this a complaint with D&D as a whole or with 4E?Well, that's another issue for another day, classes having nothing to do in combat just waiting for roleplaying and vice versa. The point is, you can build yourself to be terrible in combat on accident or even with good intentions. The point wasn't about the example of a bard/monk, it was that the multiclassing system is broken in 3.5 because of the huge variance in end results. I'm arguing that fixing it is keeping everything tailored to a strict power curve, or in other words, 'make multi-classing a joke.'Well, you can still create characters in 4th edition and have a wide variety of possibilities. Even if 4th edition has less choices(which I'm not entirely convinced of just yet, based on every class having a wide variety of powers to choose from,) that doesn't mean that there isn't a "wide variety." I can't argue with you thinking that 4E simply does not have a the amount of variety to be considered "wide," but overall, I find that  even with very restrictive rules like multiclassing 4E still has plenty of options.To be sure, multiclassing a caster was terrible, losing caster level was a huge handicap. You'd be misdirecting and enchanting at a low save DC due to multiple ability dependency and the low spell level. Once they save against your spells, you have nothing else to do really. In 4E, once you multiclass to gain the spells you want, you aren't suffering from decreased spell level, and at worst you suffer from MAD. I made a 'bard' using the 4E rules so far, making an inspiring warlord multiclassed into fey-pact warlock. Sure, it takes some reflavoring (Wolf Pack Tactics=Directing Flourish,etc...) but I'm liking the end result a lot. And, the only power trade off I'm worried about is "well...hmmm...maybe I should have taken that feat instead..." I view this as a good thing. Hmm, on the other hand, I could have gone a more "lore-master" approach and gone the tactical warlord and then multiclassed into wizard... or maybe I could stay warlord and be completely free of anything magical, using only my wit to pull me through.On a side note, does anyone really want to play someone who does nothing in combat but sweeps anything out of combat? In my 4E campaign so far, I've found my players are contributing to both since everyone has trained skills now and everyone has combat oriented powers, and we're having a lot of fun. I guess I'd like to hear how the grass is on the other side.</blockquote>

Verification