|
5 years ago ::
Mar 18, 2008 - 5:32AM
#91
|
|
|
First off I gotta tip my hat to Massawyrm, I liked your review allot especially how you come across as a real human and not some number crunching atomaton. Much of what you said has cleared up my fears for this new system of D&D. It seems that DMing may actually be enjoyable with this new system where in the past at least for me I have struggled to have fun with that aspect. I love how the games seem to be far less dependent on gear something that I always disliked about previous editions of D&D and most other RPGs. The "no player left behind" policy seems interesting and the idea of class balance though alien could be just what the game needs.
That being said there are things I already hate about the new system. Rangers my favorite class for all of 3e have lost their spells. Sure maybe they never had the greatest spells but I enjoyed the versatility of them all the same. Also I am one of them crazy dinosaurs that actually liked Venetian casting and think its dreadful they yanked it.
There are also a few things I would like to know more about if you might enlighten me. I am rather excited about the racial bonuses gained for advancement in levels. Is there a racial bonus that grants Dwarves their darkvision back? Not very pleased they had to lose such an important ability however I am optamistic that other racial benefits could be good. Are Wizards very dependent on Wands, Staves and Orbs? This has been a sore spot for many of my friends as they do not like forced class flavor. Also do you think a Warlock might be a good substitution as a class for someone who formerly liked 3.5 Ranger?
Thanks for the review I enjoyed it and am now more than ever looking forward to 4e.
Game Quote of the Week: Me: "That seems like a great idea for a character, I'm still thinking about what I want to make." Friend: "You've had your character made for the last 15 years, your going to make a dwarf ranger." Me: "I was thinking about some kind of warrior that uses nature magic, maybe a race with a close connection to earth and stone."
Friend: *shakes his head*
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 19, 2008 - 12:59AM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2004
|
Ok. I got it. So your criticism on 3E (no, wait, 3.0 - no wait again, 3.0 without splat books...) is that it didn't balance even-leveled fighter/mages? I'll get back to that in a moment.
Duly noted. I'll get back to these in my summary, below.
Well, I'd say it takes about three prestige classes and a feat, but since you already mentioned that point, I'll skip to the best part:
Now, that really made me laugh! 
Yes NO splat book. Bloody hell. If a core system is broken without you having to shell out 100+ more bucks for additional book, it's a BAD bloody system!!! Good god man. Honestly I can't believe that you think it is acceptable that a company can make a half assed system and then charge you for the fix. No wait, microsoft generation...it makes sense now. No this is NOT acceptable and I have in good faith given wizards 2 chances now. They aren't getting another.
So you prefer to play 2E because:
1) fighter/mages are balanced with pure casters so that DMs don't have to pull punches.
2) he who wins init doesn't win.
3) casters don't rule it all.
Are we talking about the same 2E rules I've played with, I wonder?
Items 2) and 3) are just as problematic in 2E as they are in 3E.
Item 1) deserves a more detailed look:
Are you talking about human-change class? If so, I'm sorry, but those were extremely clunky:
- No way to advance the first class after switching
- utterly useless after starting the second class until the second class caught up in levels
- seriously more powerful than straight casters in campaigns starting at a higher level (i.e. after the second class has more levels than the first)
Item 2 and 3 were not the case. No rogues meant you died to traps. The divine magic capped at 7th level and was nowhere near as unbalanced as 3rd ed. ONLY fighter could get more then 1 attack a round with melee weapon. And yes arcane spells were powerful...but lets look at casting a spell shall we? You get hit and it's gone. Automatically. No check, no nothing, you lose the spell. So unless you can go first everytime (good luck with that with high levels spells slowing your initative by 9 counts BTW) or prepare VERY well, get ready to be pin cushioned. And magic didn't end combats like they do 3rd ed. Spell resistence was actual resistence...and imunity was imunity. Not this stupid SR crap we have where a magic imune golem if affected by non magic orbs of magical force. Or non magical fiery fog (because no magic fog isn't burned off by fire of course) of magically conjured fog for a core example.
Or are you talking about non-human multi-classed characters?
Due to the xp progression, these were automatically never far behind straight classes. So, in a party with 11th level characters you'd have a level 9/9 character or a level 8/8/8 character. Now, do you consider these to be balanced with each other?
Yes because you had the HP of a 9th or 8th level characer back then. Your attack or spells or save or skills suffered for it. It was pretty balanced. Actually in general straight classes were better...but MC wasn't as stupid as 3rd ed.
Finally, I'd like to mention that there are lots of rpg systems that don't even have something like multi-classing. What about these? I guess, since you seem to be so 'interested' in this particular point, you consider these to be utter garbage and 'not playable'?
And those games are not D&D. We aren't talking about other games, we are talking about D and bloody Fing D. I don't give a rats arse if other games don't have multi classing. I'm playing bloody D&D and I want to MC if I so choose. If I wanna play a game without MCing, I'll play something else. D&D has some sacred things. This is one of them. So is the vanican spell system (love or hate it). Another is the blood wars. 4th ed is getting rid of all of these it seems. Gygax chose a good time to die it seems. He can't be rolling is grave if he isn't dead yet after all. The blurb about 4th ed says it all. It's a game that feels like D&D. Well I don't want a game that feels like D&D, I want the REAL thing damn it...not some cheap imitation that feels like it.
You won't be surprised if I tell you that I consider the 2E rules to be barely playable after severely house-ruling them. Yes, we've had tons of fun with my house-ruled 2E campaign - especially since noone particularly cared about it being not 'balanced'. But I definitely wouldn't want to go back playing it after having played 3E.
No this does not surpise me one bit....
And to get back to the original topic of this thread:
From what I've heard so far about the 4E rules, multi-classing may well work better than it ever did before - and it's probably even balanced!
We'll know for sure shortly, and I can barely await it...
Funny because what I read in the review and others makes me think MC isn't even an option in 4th ed until every 10 levels. God I hope I'm wrong. And actually I agree, I can't wait. I wanna be proven wrong. I want 4th ed to not suck. I want 4th ed to be a REAL D&D game. I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2008 - 8:25AM
#93
|
|
|
Still interested in some answers to these questions if Massawyrm is around.
Is there a racial bonus that grants Dwarves their darkvision back? Are Wizards very dependent on Wands, Staves and Orbs? Also do you think a Warlock might be a good substitution as a class for someone who formerly liked 3.5 Ranger?
Game Quote of the Week: Me: "That seems like a great idea for a character, I'm still thinking about what I want to make." Friend: "You've had your character made for the last 15 years, your going to make a dwarf ranger." Me: "I was thinking about some kind of warrior that uses nature magic, maybe a race with a close connection to earth and stone."
Friend: *shakes his head*
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 21, 2008 - 1:51PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2005
|
We don't know how multiclassing works but you will be able to multiclass. The Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are added in addition to your normal class levels.
I don't know if anyone can tell you if Dwarves will have a racial ability to get darkvision at least until the books are released.
Orbs, Staves, and Wands are to a Wizard what a Sword, Axe, or Spear are to a Fighter.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 22, 2008 - 10:42AM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2004
|
We don't know how multiclassing works but you will be able to multiclass. The Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are added in addition to your normal class levels.
I don't know if anyone can tell you if Dwarves will have a racial ability to get darkvision at least until the books are released.
Orbs, Staves, and Wands are to a Wizard what a Sword, Axe, or Spear are to a Fighter.
Did you read the class and races book? The paragon and epic class branch off from your hero class. It leads one to believe that they lifted the lineage or ragnorak online system where you have a base class then at a certain level you pick one of two path...then one of three. Nowehere does it say anything about MC or not...but MC would just muck this system up something fierce. Especially since the paragon and epic path I assume is based on a single class and they did not bother to make one for every single MC options out there. Otherwise, I think we are looking at a 1000 page PHB. So yes this system is one used for single class only. This also explains why they made a gish in a can class (not that I would consider what they made a fun gish to play from the description...if that is what I wanted to play, I'd play a fighter type...not a gish...bloody idiot game designers have no clue).
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 22, 2008 - 11:20AM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Apr 26, 2005
|
I've read R&C as well as M&W. I'm basing my information off blogs and info found from the devs on the site since the release of those books.
Everyone still says you will be able to multiclass but none give details.
In one of the devs blogs it was noted that Paragon Paths are in addition to your normal class advancement. I can't remember who it was though.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 22, 2008 - 11:37AM
#97
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2004
|
I just don't see how that kind of system would support MC in a meaningful way. It's either gonna make one of the classes marginalized into obscurity...or they need a 1000 page PHB to cover all the MC combination for the paragon and epic paths. I mean if there is MC, it sounds like it will be even stupider then 3.x system...which I thought was impossible. Leave it to wizards to prove me wrong in how stupid they can actually get.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 22, 2008 - 4:01PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2004
|
Everyone still says you will be able to multiclass but none give details.
Well, it was one of the topics of the Q&A session in podcast 21.
Basically you'll have to take feats named ' training'. It's clearly defined which abilities you get from the selected class. That's how they can make sure multi-classed characters are balanced. IIRC, you can also take the feat several times to get more abilities from the selected class. It sounds like a pretty elegant solution.
In one of the devs blogs it was noted that Paragon Paths are in addition to your normal class advancement. I can't remember who it was though.
Yup. I can never remember what the source was, either . Between blogs, forum posts from WotC representatives, DDM cards/rules, preview books, excerpts, dragon articles, podcasts, and whatever, it's hard to keep track of original sources.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2008 - 8:19AM
#99
|
|
|
I just don't see how that kind of system would support MC in a meaningful way. It's either gonna make one of the classes marginalized into obscurity...or they need a 1000 page PHB to cover all the MC combination for the paragon and epic paths. I mean if there is MC, it sounds like it will be even stupider then 3.x system...which I thought was impossible. Leave it to wizards to prove me wrong in how stupid they can actually get.
Your hyperbole is delicious!
Either 1000 page PHB or nothing they print matters? There is no possible in-between? I think someone drank a bit too much absurd-aid.
What about "Paragon/Epic XX isn't a class, but a series of options available to flesh out various archetypes".
I was expecting something similar to a superfeat or superfeat chain, nothing that requires or forbids any specific class combinations.
Also, if the "X-class training" feats are the standard convention for multiclassing then it seems that it is more line with a balanced version of the tripe that was 2nd edition multiclassing rules.
By the by, do you really think that the HP difference between a fighter 9/ cleric 9 / wizard 9 and a wizard 11 made the 2nd edition multiclassing system "balanced"?
I expect nothing but the best hyperbole in response to this, please don't disappoint!
Sadly, tofu never screams.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
Mar 23, 2008 - 11:41AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Jul 20, 2004
|
Your hyperbole is delicious!
Either 1000 page PHB or nothing they print matters? There is no possible in-between? I think someone drank a bit too much absurd-aid.
What about "Paragon/Epic XX isn't a class, but a series of options available to flesh out various archetypes".
Except of course that they already admited to the paragon and epic paths being class progressions based off you hero levels of course. Yeah unless you ignore that part.
I was expecting something similar to a superfeat or superfeat chain, nothing that requires or forbids any specific class combinations.
Also, if the "X-class training" feats are the standard convention for multiclassing then it seems that it is more line with a balanced version of the tripe that was 2nd edition multiclassing rules.
You know I heard about this option too. And thought...wow bloody idiotic. So basically if you want to be MCed, you have to sacrifice basically all your feats (or at least most). And this isn't REALLY MC, your just taking class abilities from other classes. I mean honestly, if your gonna do this, might as well just take the full step and go classless...instead of this half assed crap. I mean it's not like they actually CARE if the game is D&D anymore. I mean they killed off enough sacred cows, whats one more? And for a better system no less as oppose to getting rid of the blood wars for no good reason. Why not go the full mile and make a decent system at least then. I admit D&D isn't the greatest system. Hell it's usually not even a GOOD system in many cases. But I play D&D because it is D and bloody Fing D. Despite how much I ***** about 3rd ed, it is a D&D game. I'm hoping 4th ed is...but I'm not holding my breath.
By the by, do you really think that the HP difference between a fighter 9/ cleric 9 / wizard 9 and a wizard 11 made the 2nd edition multiclassing system "balanced"?
I expect nothing but the best hyperbole in response to this, please don't disappoint!
wizard 11 is 375k exp. That BTW means means fighter 8/cleric 8/wizard 8. That is 3 spell levels that character is behind. Hey remeber why MT is considered weak? Yeah because it's 3 spell levels behind a SC caster. AND you get split HP instead of addative, and split saves instead of additive. Yes it was balanced...actually no, it was generally WORSE...but not punitavely so as a 3.x core only game.
Ah and personal attack. I knew you would resort to personal jabs. You always do. Glad you didn't disapoint.
|
|
|
