|
5 years ago ::
May 05, 2008 - 9:40AM
#141
|
|
|
For example, there is no need to get hung up on whether or not your fighter-mage-thief concept, being approximated by buying Thievery and Stealth skills, has no sneak attack option. Each class will have its own special abilities that are roughly equivalent to doing extra damage from a sneak attack. It is a game mechanic not part of a character concept.
This right here folks is exactly what everyone needs to wrap their minds around. When creating your character CONCEPT, remove any reference to CLASS or SPECIFIC ability (i.e. sneak attack) and write down what remains. Now take your 4th edition book and start to look at how to meet that concept. Even from the excerpts we have seen you can start to put together a character that will do what it is you want.
Caviot: If you build a character in 3.5 based solely on numbers (number of feats, BAB, number of spells per day) you really need to get away from that because you are going to be disappointed. 4th edition was built to do away with that mentality.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 05, 2008 - 4:34PM
#142
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2005
|
glimeral--
For me, it's not a question of realizing concepts. I don't need to wait for some developer to create classes and powers for me if I have to; I'm perfectly capable of doing it myself. It's a question of the enjoyment of playing with the system. I enjoy flexible class-based systems, period. I like having lots of options. I like combining and creating and mixing.
Sure, there's lots of powers for me to choose from, and there will be more of everything as more supplements come out. That's all fine and well, but unless those supplements provide house rules for a replaced multiclassing system, they will not fix my core problem. Adding more powers so I have more choices within my class doesn't cut it for me.
As an example, I enjoyed the class system of Final Fantasy Tactics / FF5 far more than the materia system of Final Fantasy 7 even though FF7 had far more powers available (and I could even mix them literally however I wanted; it was truly an open system). I also enjoy the FFT/FF5 style over that of WoW and similar popular tree-based RPGs these days. That's because those two games group their powers into classes, then let the player switch between them, learning various abilities, and combining them into a custom creation. I feel that my resulting characters are always less generic than with the "classless" systems or the tree-based systems, the former of which tend to dabble in everything and the latter of which tend to be cookie-cutter specialists. I like something in the middle.
This isn't a lack of material. This isn't a misunderstanding of how the system works. This isn't a lack of ability to figure out how to realize my character concepts. This is a mechanical gripe with the core design of the system, and nothing short of a new system is going to fix it. Period.
sparrowhawk4--
You can severely limit things with careful assignment of action resources and control of bonus stacking. Broken combinations are most often those that allow you to stack related bonuses or apply multiple effects all at once. Furthermore, most of the brokenness in 3E came from two sources: greatly overpowered magic (a flaw in the core that continued through the end) and monster designs that failed to take into account the ability of players to gain the capabilities of those monsters (this is what led to Pun-pun). The "overpowered edge" of carefully multiclassed characters (not brokenness, just being a bit too strong) came from careless allocation of ability gains (prestige classes with front-loaded abilities, for example) and a flawed numerical advancement system (the significant bonuses to saves at level 1 for all classes as opposed to just an initial bonus for level 1 characters, for example).
All of these things can be taken into account and dealt with appropriately to allow for a significantly more balanced resulting system. It won't be perfect; a few things will slip through the cracks. But it will with the existing 4E system, too. Guaranteed. Just wait and see.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 05, 2008 - 5:31PM
#143
|
|
|
I disagree that he's multiclassed at all. Really, if you look at him, he IS a bard - lightly armored, he wields a sword and a shield but can also use a bow, can use a variety of minor spells, and can play a musical instrument well.
Even 3.x bards have several times more magic than Link ever did. Link is a fighter with a magic flute and a bag of holding and a metric ton of magic items.
EDIT: Oh, and there's no possible way that the system can possibly prevent you from retraining your class. Just stat up a new character that has the capabilities you want him to have, and then slap on the character's name.
(your DM, on the other hand, may feel differently...)
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 05, 2008 - 6:03PM
#144
|
Date Joined:
Sep 22, 2006
|
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
WizO_Unicorn
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 05, 2008 - 7:18PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2003
|
As for the talk of a bard class, i hope they have a build that de-emphasizes the musical aspect and plays up the "jack-of-all-trades" flavor that they have had in AD&D over the years, if/when they are introduced in the PHB2. It seems that a lot of people want to play a class that is like that, just not one that has to sing and play instruments to be effective.
Not that there is anything wrong with singing and playing instruments. :P
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 06, 2008 - 10:59AM
#146
|
|
|
As for the talk of a bard class, i hope they have a build that de-emphasizes the musical aspect and plays up the "jack-of-all-trades" flavor that they have had in AD&D over the years, if/when they are introduced in the PHB2. It seems that a lot of people want to play a class that is like that, just not one that has to sing and play instruments to be effective.
Not that there is anything wrong with singing and playing instruments. :P
I definitely preferred the storyteller / skald style of bard and hopefully we will see those as well as the minstrel. I think their toughest challenge will be conflicts with the warlord class as far as buffing the party.
BLUFF-BLUFF-BLUFF Bluff the stupid Ogre!!
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 12:32PM
#147
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
You can severely limit things with careful assignment of action resources and control of bonus stacking.
1) not sure what you mean by action resources. If you mean what PC's can do per turn, the new power system does that better then prior editions, IMHO
2) bonus stacking is going bye-bye, for the most part. Some still there but the dependence is gone.
Broken combinations are most often those that allow you to stack related bonuses or apply multiple effects all at once. Furthermore, most of the brokenness in 3E came from two sources: greatly overpowered magic (a flaw in the core that continued through the end) and monster designs that failed to take into account the ability of players to gain the capabilities of those monsters (this is what led to Pun-pun).
You are right, but the system for 4E is taking into account other things as well, such as party balance and combat role as well as non-combat encounters. Magic is being toned down and monsters are no longer built like PCs.
The "overpowered edge" of carefully multiclassed characters (not brokenness, just being a bit too strong) came from careless allocation of ability gains (prestige classes with front-loaded abilities, for example) and a flawed numerical advancement system (the significant bonuses to saves at level 1 for all classes as opposed to just an initial bonus for level 1 characters, for example).
And your suggestion hints at what the developers thought as well. Instead of ability being based on CLASS level, switch things over to CHARACTER level. if all CHARACTERS advance at suppose to advance at the same rate, then it makes it easier to balance the class dynamics.
All of these things can be taken into account and dealt with appropriately to allow for a significantly more balanced resulting system. It won't be perfect; a few things will slip through the cracks. But it will with the existing 4E system, too. Guaranteed. Just wait and see.
We arn't claiming it will be perfect. I'm sure someone will eventually break the system. But if, overall, 4E accomplishes several factors: seperating combat and non-combat meaninfully, allowing classes to be distinct and not jump on each other's territory or hog the spotlight, fix the magic and spell system, it will be a superior system in my opinion, at least mechanically.
|
|
|
|
5 years ago ::
May 07, 2008 - 3:08PM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2005
|
I agree with pretty much all of that, sparrowhawk. I'm on-board for the vast majority of 4E that I've seen 
|
|
|
