It has been a slow month for blog posts, but speaking for myself, it hasn't been because of a lack of D&Ding... when not trying to keep up with the articles from Wizards of the Coast, I've been playing some more with the tools, mainly the Character Builder and the Compendium.
In the past, usually while discussing multiclassing, I've complained that making a "themed" character is much more difficult in 4e, because you don't have the flexibility that the plethora of prestige classes gave in 3.5. With the poor-man's multiclassing that came with 4e, you couldn't accomplish much, but the hybrid rules are another matter...
In 3.5, I was never a multiclasser, just a prestige classer -- some might quibble about the difference, but I think it's significant, especially for the spellcasting classes whose pretige classes often had that familiar line: "+1 level of arcane spellcasting" or what have you. Otherwise, I was a one-class kinda guy, always seeing multiclassing as weakening the original class, because you were sacrificing something for every level you didn't take in your original class. The gestalt rules were a nice solution to this, because they meant you didn't sacrifice anything, and they allowed for a high-powered campaign -- as long as that was something you wanted.
The hybrid rules for 4e, though, do a pretty good job about giving you your two classes without making you any more powerful that a single-class character. Granted, our actual playtest experience with hybrids has been limited to Griff's wizard/fighter dragonborn, but I have now had quite a bit of experience making hybrid characters using the Character Builder, and none seem over-powered.
This is, of course, if you ignore the fact that I am a serious min-maxer when I put my mind to it, thus making a character "over-powered" in certain areas, almost certainly at the expense of something else. Crwth the cleric has, whether in pen-and-paper, Neverwinter Nights or Dungeons & Dragons Online, been a healer before an undead fighter, boosting Wisdom as high as it will go and ignoring Charisma completely. And a DDO Bard that completely maxes out the Haggle skill, just to game the auction house, is sure to sacrifice in other areas -- like melee fighting of any kind.
But to me, that's what a themed character is -- something that focuses on a particular idea (or two), at the expense of everything else. If I'm making a "healer", they're not as good at any of the other roles that this class is known for. If I'm making a "divine warrior" (always choosing powers that deal Radiant damage before any other power), I'm making a character that will be at a large disadvantage to anything that can resist Radiant damage. I go into this willingly, ready to take on that challenge if it arises, for the focused direction of the character's build.
And this brings me to the real point: the Character Builder and the Compendium make this a HELL of a lot easier to do that it was in 3.5. Granted, the idea of a themed character is a bit different now; you would browse a bunch of splat books in 3.5, find an interesting prestige class or two, and build around that as your goal. In 4e, I find myself seeing the occasional power description, class variant or paragon path, and get an idea to focus upon.
The Character Builder ensures that I have, at my fingertips, every power or feat that is available at any given level, instead of having to have a stack of books to check, and the Compendium lets me filter out certain keywords ("radiant", "prone", "necrotic", "heal") to help choose from my selections. This let me quickly try my "healing monk" (really a cleric/avenger hybrid) focusing on healing while at the front line; my "protector" (cleric/shaman hybrid) my attempt at a completely maxed-out healer; my "divine warrior" (revenant cleric) based solely around the Revered One epic destiny's Manifest the Divine feature of using each Channel Divinity power per encounter, instead of just one; and my "beastflanker" (beastmaster ranger) that could solo (with companion) quite effectively.
Unfortunately, my forays into rapidly building character concepts could have gone smoother. Sure, figuring 30 levels of a character in about 20 minutes is pretty good, but there are ways that it could still be improved. The search functionality in the Character Builder is only for actual names of powers, feats, etc., which doesn't seem that useful - no one knows the name of what they're looking for, they just know some of the terms that it contains. I had hoped that I could type in "heal" or "undead" into the power list, or feat list, or even equipment list, and get the Builder to filter things out. I suppose it DOES say "search" and not "filter"...
The Compendium does help here, as it has a single word filter (could use a second, in some cases), and lets you further filter by other criteria, depending on the item. Going back and forth between the Compendium and the Builder is a bit incovenient, though (I say while on my four-monitor setup); I think having the compendium embedded in the builder window would be very handy indeed. Also, being able to leave multiple search results open would be handy -- I'd like the list of powers with "resist" in them as well as the list of feats, available at the same time, if I'm making a this-guy-gives-crazy-resists character. And, I really don't like the obscuring window that the Compendium uses when you look at a specific entry -- are frames so uncool now in web development?
These are minor gripes, though, when I have to admit that these computer-based resources are making 4e a lot more interesting to use. When I got the Player's Handbook, my eyes glazed over seeing the same block format for power after power -- and I LIKE that there's a template for them! It just isn't a good browseable format for getting a feel for a class. I still have no clue what kinds of powers warlords, paladins, fighters, rangers, etc. have, because I just can't imagine reading the powers list right through. Having a means to search through them saves me from that, provided I know what to search for.
And, I hate to admit it, but access to all of the content online might be a bad thing for book sales... while I like having a physical book over an digital one in general, for my purposes the online version is more worth it right now, and a few books have now gone unpurchased because of this. Does this mean that Wizards should require "activation" of online content, using a key that comes with the hardcover book, to unlock the data? I thought they were going to do that, and am obviously glad they haven't. Perhaps the marketing people decided that seeing the content online would drive people to buy books they wouldn't otherwise consider?
Showing posts with label prestige classes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label prestige classes. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
So you wanna play an Arcane Archer
Normally I don't pay a lot of attention to the "Character Concept" articles in Dragon, but the one from Issue #374 provides a perfect example of the one thing that robs the enjoyment from 4E.
The Arcane Archer.
Anyone who played 3rd edition is probably familiar with the Arcane Archer. It was a nice little prestige class from the DMG that was most likely overshadowed and forgotten under the deluge of later releases. Of all the prestige classes the Arcane Archer and Shadow Adept are the two that I'd most like to see as classes in 4E. Since we're going to get so many classes anyways, why not port some of the better Prestige Classes?
In the meantime this Character Concepts article offers up a way to build a makeshift version. All well and good so far.
If you are thinking at all like I was, you naturally assumed that they'd start with a Ranger. The author, Matthew Sernett, does indeed address that assumption. "When it comes to archery, no class holds a candle to the ranger, but the ranger doesn't have much that seems like magic in terms of ranged attacks."
Okay. Agreed. So what do you suggest Matthew?
"Fortunately, Arcane Power provides the bard with a number of ranged weapon powers that hit the target."
What? The bard? Are you fucking kidding me?
This is precisely why the prospect of my gaming group sticking with 4E fills me with such loathing and dread. The whole I have character concept "x" but the only way I can come close to doing it is through some half-ass compromise. I might not want to play a bard but if I want my Arcane Archer, well... I've gotta suck it up because there's no other way to do it.
And it's not a question of whether the bard class is "better" than the ranger class. It's about options and choice and imagination. You know. The parts of DnD that are far more important than streamlined combat rules. The parts that make the game fun.
Say I want to play a rogue or stealthy type who likes to coerce enemies into following him around the battlefield. A taunting type with a splash of swashbuckling. In 3.5 I'd probably start with a rogue or bard and then work in some fighter levels for the feats. Easy peasy and fun.
In 4E this character probably needs to be able to "mark" so... what? A paladin multiclassed with bard? I honestly don't know. So I guess I'll shelve that concept and just cookie cutter myself a generic rogue or fighter or whatever. What difference does it make? Really?
Honestly, I could probably roll a die to generate a class, slap on a name, and start playing. If I want to put some thought into it I need to forget about the class name and focus on the powers it offers. It's the menu of powers that are important. So what if being a paladin makes absolutely no sense for my character concept. I mean, it's not like there's room for any sort of character development. God forbid that I should try to develop a backstory and personality for my character. Picking a name is about the limit of creativity allowed in 4E.
But I suppose that if we jump straight into combat it'll be fun. Right?
The Arcane Archer.
Anyone who played 3rd edition is probably familiar with the Arcane Archer. It was a nice little prestige class from the DMG that was most likely overshadowed and forgotten under the deluge of later releases. Of all the prestige classes the Arcane Archer and Shadow Adept are the two that I'd most like to see as classes in 4E. Since we're going to get so many classes anyways, why not port some of the better Prestige Classes?
In the meantime this Character Concepts article offers up a way to build a makeshift version. All well and good so far.
If you are thinking at all like I was, you naturally assumed that they'd start with a Ranger. The author, Matthew Sernett, does indeed address that assumption. "When it comes to archery, no class holds a candle to the ranger, but the ranger doesn't have much that seems like magic in terms of ranged attacks."
Okay. Agreed. So what do you suggest Matthew?
"Fortunately, Arcane Power provides the bard with a number of ranged weapon powers that hit the target."
What? The bard? Are you fucking kidding me?
This is precisely why the prospect of my gaming group sticking with 4E fills me with such loathing and dread. The whole I have character concept "x" but the only way I can come close to doing it is through some half-ass compromise. I might not want to play a bard but if I want my Arcane Archer, well... I've gotta suck it up because there's no other way to do it.
And it's not a question of whether the bard class is "better" than the ranger class. It's about options and choice and imagination. You know. The parts of DnD that are far more important than streamlined combat rules. The parts that make the game fun.
Say I want to play a rogue or stealthy type who likes to coerce enemies into following him around the battlefield. A taunting type with a splash of swashbuckling. In 3.5 I'd probably start with a rogue or bard and then work in some fighter levels for the feats. Easy peasy and fun.
In 4E this character probably needs to be able to "mark" so... what? A paladin multiclassed with bard? I honestly don't know. So I guess I'll shelve that concept and just cookie cutter myself a generic rogue or fighter or whatever. What difference does it make? Really?
Honestly, I could probably roll a die to generate a class, slap on a name, and start playing. If I want to put some thought into it I need to forget about the class name and focus on the powers it offers. It's the menu of powers that are important. So what if being a paladin makes absolutely no sense for my character concept. I mean, it's not like there's room for any sort of character development. God forbid that I should try to develop a backstory and personality for my character. Picking a name is about the limit of creativity allowed in 4E.
But I suppose that if we jump straight into combat it'll be fun. Right?
Monday, April 6, 2009
Hybrids
Today's Dragon articles included a Playtest article on Hybrid Characters. In a nutshell, this is multiclassing for 4e.
But wait, doesn't 4e have the multiclass feat? Sure, but did anyone really think of that as multiclassing? Not around here, surely. It let you dabble in a second class, getting a little taste of it, just enough to wish for the old days.
Hybrids, though, let you do more than that. As you advance, you advance in your two chosen classes equally; in fact, you get the hit points for both, the bonuses for both, the weapon proficiencies, the surges... sounds too powerful, right?
Well not quite. There are "hybrid" versions of the classes, which lessen the impact of these combining rules: clerics get 7 surges a day, hybrid clerics get 3 (plus their other hybrid class's); clerics get healing word, hybrid clerics get a hybrid version that's once-per-encounter.
The powers are as usual, though, which means that you have the same number of powers at each level, but can now choose from both of your hybrid classes. There's a small restriction - that if you have more than one type of power (daily, encounter, etc.) you must have at least one from each of the classes, much the same as the druid class requires you to take at least one beast-form and one non-beast-form power.
The article starts off pointing out that if you choose two classes that fill different roles, then your character is not going to adequately fill either. This means that if you're in a larger party, you might want someone else to also be a leader, or controller, along side you; but is also means that in a smaller party, you can help fill in roles that might have gone absent.
An interesting side note also mentions that "[t]he system of classes and roles in D&D is designed to ensure that every character has a clear purpose at the table and that no character can easily become marginalized by poor choices made in character creation," and goes on to warn that "[t]he hybrid character system discards many of the safeguards built into the normal class system."
Unfortunately, until this playtest turns into official rules (having ironed out what we Insiders might send them in commentary), we won't have access to the hybrids in the Compendium or the Character Builder. Being my preferred method for trying out 4e builds, I don't know that I'll be trying out this hybrid very soon, even though I could just do it by hand. I think that hybrids between similar roles will turn out to be better characters in general, because they're not splitting their attention, so much as their methods. A ranger/rogue is still a striker through-and-through, even if only half of the abilities are rangery and half roguey.
However, having read Griff's opinion on the wizard, and how you just end up using the same at-will power over and over, perhaps having a second, completely-different type of at-will at your disposal might be the key to livening up a character. In fact, Griff's wizard fancies the bastard sword, so having a controller attack of a wizard as well as a defender/striker attack when up-close might be the key to turning Griff to the dark side of 4e. Perhaps he'll let us know.
One last thing I should point out is that you can still take the multiclass feat when a hybrid, letting you dabble in a third class. I think that this, if balanced properly, might just allow those of us addicted to countless classes and prestige classes from 3.5 to get closer to the customization we miss.
But wait, doesn't 4e have the multiclass feat? Sure, but did anyone really think of that as multiclassing? Not around here, surely. It let you dabble in a second class, getting a little taste of it, just enough to wish for the old days.
Hybrids, though, let you do more than that. As you advance, you advance in your two chosen classes equally; in fact, you get the hit points for both, the bonuses for both, the weapon proficiencies, the surges... sounds too powerful, right?
Well not quite. There are "hybrid" versions of the classes, which lessen the impact of these combining rules: clerics get 7 surges a day, hybrid clerics get 3 (plus their other hybrid class's); clerics get healing word, hybrid clerics get a hybrid version that's once-per-encounter.
The powers are as usual, though, which means that you have the same number of powers at each level, but can now choose from both of your hybrid classes. There's a small restriction - that if you have more than one type of power (daily, encounter, etc.) you must have at least one from each of the classes, much the same as the druid class requires you to take at least one beast-form and one non-beast-form power.
The article starts off pointing out that if you choose two classes that fill different roles, then your character is not going to adequately fill either. This means that if you're in a larger party, you might want someone else to also be a leader, or controller, along side you; but is also means that in a smaller party, you can help fill in roles that might have gone absent.
An interesting side note also mentions that "[t]he system of classes and roles in D&D is designed to ensure that every character has a clear purpose at the table and that no character can easily become marginalized by poor choices made in character creation," and goes on to warn that "[t]he hybrid character system discards many of the safeguards built into the normal class system."
Unfortunately, until this playtest turns into official rules (having ironed out what we Insiders might send them in commentary), we won't have access to the hybrids in the Compendium or the Character Builder. Being my preferred method for trying out 4e builds, I don't know that I'll be trying out this hybrid very soon, even though I could just do it by hand. I think that hybrids between similar roles will turn out to be better characters in general, because they're not splitting their attention, so much as their methods. A ranger/rogue is still a striker through-and-through, even if only half of the abilities are rangery and half roguey.
However, having read Griff's opinion on the wizard, and how you just end up using the same at-will power over and over, perhaps having a second, completely-different type of at-will at your disposal might be the key to livening up a character. In fact, Griff's wizard fancies the bastard sword, so having a controller attack of a wizard as well as a defender/striker attack when up-close might be the key to turning Griff to the dark side of 4e. Perhaps he'll let us know.
One last thing I should point out is that you can still take the multiclass feat when a hybrid, letting you dabble in a third class. I think that this, if balanced properly, might just allow those of us addicted to countless classes and prestige classes from 3.5 to get closer to the customization we miss.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Playing your own character
Hot on the heels of Griff's last two posts, I'll mention that I've been playing with the Character Builder a lot lately, getting to know the different classes out there. I find that this is a lot easier than trying to read through thirty levels of powers for a class, where they all blur together...
To test out the Builder, I took all of my various 3.5 characters over the years, and attempted to recreate them in 4e. It should be noted that, while I might complain about the lack of choice in 4e, I very rarely multiclassed in 3.5, not counting prestige classes. I thought that this might have made these recreations a little easier.
I started this experiment after reading the article on the Shadar Kai in Dragon #372, where they also provided some feats specific to the spiked chain. This brought to mind my 3.5 character Placide DeMorgan, and I thought I'd give a spin recreating him.
This was actually a lot of fun, and quite the challenge. The idea of Placide was that he had reach, and that he could Trip and Disarm well. Trip and Disarm are no longer general attack types in 4e, so my goal was to take any power that came along that provided "...and target falls prone" or any mention of disarming. Then I decided that anything that might grab a target would fit in with the concept (wrapping them around with the chain), and, if none of these choices was available, I'd go for the idea of a sweeping attack, such as a close burst smack-everyone-around-you attack. And if all else failed, I'd take a power that provided a slide or pull effect, as Placide tugs his opponents around the battlefield.
But it was tough! There were many choices of powers that fit with this idea. It also "helped" that, with the right choice of feats, the spiked chain was considered a flail, a two-handed weapon, two weapons, an off-hand weapon, a light blade, a double weapon, and reach weapon, which meant that any powers that offered up bonuses to use of such a weapon became appealing.
To level Placide through level 30 probably took two hours, on and off, of flipping back and forth between power descriptions and even feat descriptions. It was probably the most engaging character I've made in 4e.
On the heels of such a success, I tried to make Raven, my Druid/Shifter (and by far my favorite 3.5 character to play). Not having the Shifter prestige class was going to be a blow, but because the beast form was such a large part of the 4e druid, my idea was to focus on powers and feats that would allow 4e Raven to remain in beast form and be at her most powerful, with little regard to her human form. Also, going with the more feral build, I was going to avoid taking any powers that did energy damage, staying instead with claws, teeth and primal savagery.
Well I was successful, I suppose, in that I made a 30th level druid. But it wasn't nearly as fun, or interesting, or engaging, as making the fighter. I kept thinking that I wished I could have a little bit of a Rage effect, to really let the primal nature take over, or some stealthy creeping beast form to then sneak attack with -- but of course, I can't multiclass barbarian or rogue here. While I was able to apply my build "rules" and choose from my options easily, I ended up whipping through the 30 levels without really noticing it, without much thought.
You might be thinking, then, that it's my fault for coming up with this restrictive build, that made this character easy and uninteresting to make. But this is my point. I summarized this feeling to one of our group on Saturday night: that 3.5 allowed you to come up with some completely-custom idea for a character -- a stabby, lightning-casting, gnome who's good at tripping and throwing hammers -- and you could find a combination of classes, feats, spells and equipment to realize you very specific character concept. In 4e, you can try to do this, but in the end, are given only a handful of choices, and you have to try and be creative based on those (or perhaps in spite of those).
I got lucky with building 4e Placide, because there were lots of feats and powers that accentuated the idea behind him. But not so much with Raven. And perhaps the next book or Dragon article will give me the flexibility I need -- even 3.5 didn't have every bit of content available in the beginning -- but generally new content in 4e is for the new race or new class, not something that gets added to an existing class. Feats, sure, are available to most characters, but powers are always tied to a specific class. And if I can't take that power, then let me take that class *at any level I decide to*.
As Griff just mentioned, the Paragon Paths are helping to provide a few extra branches to the thin evergreens of the class progressions, but even those are limited, and the Epic Destinies are, as Griff believes, a bit limited.
Today I just tried another remake, this time recreating the ever-doomed Ish'us'q. Had Ish'us'q seen more years in 3.5, he would have focused on DR, SR and regeneration, likely going down the path of the forsaker. In 4e, I decided to build him similarly to the Dungeons & Dragons Online version of him, with heavy concentration on raging, a falchion, and taking out multiple foes at once. There are various powers that focus on raging, and when there wasn't one available, a close burst power was usually available. The choices were there, and I got my character, but, as with Raven, it just wasn't very satisfying. There's my barbarian, all made up and ready for 30 levels... but apart from the initial "choice" of my theme, it was a no-brainer at all 29 level-ups. The glimmer of hope I had for 4e character creation that I had when making Placide still wasn't recreated.
I'm not done yet -- I've got more classes to try out in the builder, both old and new. But instead of coming up with a theme and then sitting down to realize it on a character sheet, I will be browsing through the powers of my chosen class, and trying to come up something interesting, to stand out from the others.
What colour do you want your Ford Model T in?
To test out the Builder, I took all of my various 3.5 characters over the years, and attempted to recreate them in 4e. It should be noted that, while I might complain about the lack of choice in 4e, I very rarely multiclassed in 3.5, not counting prestige classes. I thought that this might have made these recreations a little easier.
I started this experiment after reading the article on the Shadar Kai in Dragon #372, where they also provided some feats specific to the spiked chain. This brought to mind my 3.5 character Placide DeMorgan, and I thought I'd give a spin recreating him.
This was actually a lot of fun, and quite the challenge. The idea of Placide was that he had reach, and that he could Trip and Disarm well. Trip and Disarm are no longer general attack types in 4e, so my goal was to take any power that came along that provided "...and target falls prone" or any mention of disarming. Then I decided that anything that might grab a target would fit in with the concept (wrapping them around with the chain), and, if none of these choices was available, I'd go for the idea of a sweeping attack, such as a close burst smack-everyone-around-you attack. And if all else failed, I'd take a power that provided a slide or pull effect, as Placide tugs his opponents around the battlefield.
But it was tough! There were many choices of powers that fit with this idea. It also "helped" that, with the right choice of feats, the spiked chain was considered a flail, a two-handed weapon, two weapons, an off-hand weapon, a light blade, a double weapon, and reach weapon, which meant that any powers that offered up bonuses to use of such a weapon became appealing.
To level Placide through level 30 probably took two hours, on and off, of flipping back and forth between power descriptions and even feat descriptions. It was probably the most engaging character I've made in 4e.
On the heels of such a success, I tried to make Raven, my Druid/Shifter (and by far my favorite 3.5 character to play). Not having the Shifter prestige class was going to be a blow, but because the beast form was such a large part of the 4e druid, my idea was to focus on powers and feats that would allow 4e Raven to remain in beast form and be at her most powerful, with little regard to her human form. Also, going with the more feral build, I was going to avoid taking any powers that did energy damage, staying instead with claws, teeth and primal savagery.
Well I was successful, I suppose, in that I made a 30th level druid. But it wasn't nearly as fun, or interesting, or engaging, as making the fighter. I kept thinking that I wished I could have a little bit of a Rage effect, to really let the primal nature take over, or some stealthy creeping beast form to then sneak attack with -- but of course, I can't multiclass barbarian or rogue here. While I was able to apply my build "rules" and choose from my options easily, I ended up whipping through the 30 levels without really noticing it, without much thought.
You might be thinking, then, that it's my fault for coming up with this restrictive build, that made this character easy and uninteresting to make. But this is my point. I summarized this feeling to one of our group on Saturday night: that 3.5 allowed you to come up with some completely-custom idea for a character -- a stabby, lightning-casting, gnome who's good at tripping and throwing hammers -- and you could find a combination of classes, feats, spells and equipment to realize you very specific character concept. In 4e, you can try to do this, but in the end, are given only a handful of choices, and you have to try and be creative based on those (or perhaps in spite of those).
I got lucky with building 4e Placide, because there were lots of feats and powers that accentuated the idea behind him. But not so much with Raven. And perhaps the next book or Dragon article will give me the flexibility I need -- even 3.5 didn't have every bit of content available in the beginning -- but generally new content in 4e is for the new race or new class, not something that gets added to an existing class. Feats, sure, are available to most characters, but powers are always tied to a specific class. And if I can't take that power, then let me take that class *at any level I decide to*.
As Griff just mentioned, the Paragon Paths are helping to provide a few extra branches to the thin evergreens of the class progressions, but even those are limited, and the Epic Destinies are, as Griff believes, a bit limited.
Today I just tried another remake, this time recreating the ever-doomed Ish'us'q. Had Ish'us'q seen more years in 3.5, he would have focused on DR, SR and regeneration, likely going down the path of the forsaker. In 4e, I decided to build him similarly to the Dungeons & Dragons Online version of him, with heavy concentration on raging, a falchion, and taking out multiple foes at once. There are various powers that focus on raging, and when there wasn't one available, a close burst power was usually available. The choices were there, and I got my character, but, as with Raven, it just wasn't very satisfying. There's my barbarian, all made up and ready for 30 levels... but apart from the initial "choice" of my theme, it was a no-brainer at all 29 level-ups. The glimmer of hope I had for 4e character creation that I had when making Placide still wasn't recreated.
I'm not done yet -- I've got more classes to try out in the builder, both old and new. But instead of coming up with a theme and then sitting down to realize it on a character sheet, I will be browsing through the powers of my chosen class, and trying to come up something interesting, to stand out from the others.
What colour do you want your Ford Model T in?
Monday, May 26, 2008
Multiclassing and prestige classes
I know it's a month late -- my defense is that they're overwhelming me with all of these Excerpts. But after reading the entries on Multiclassing and Paragon Paths, I'm more than a little disappointed.
I know that one of the tenets of 4e D&D was to make things simpler, and classes were certainly something that could overwhelm the newcomer. With the near-dozen classes in the 3.5 Player's Handbook and fifteen prestige classes in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, players already had quite a few choices with single-classing or multiclassing.
Then add in all of the accessory books, which, whether a book on magic, evil or monsters, seemed to provide at least one more class or prestige class to the list. With so many (too many?) choices available, it became daunting to try and decide what the next hero of the world would look like.
Of course, there's nothing saying that you had to look through them all, that you had to stray from the starter classes, or even consider multiclassing (or prestige classes). In fact, I'd say that the idea of customizing your character to that extent (whether for power-gaming purposes or that perfect character theme) was the purview of advanced players who could handle an overwhelming amount of choice, and who relished piecing together that obscure combination that exemplified their character vision.
I think 4e has gone too far with simplifying these choices. The multiclassing article basically reduces the idea down to a few feats that give you another class's abilities. And instead of prestige classes, which had a minimum level at which you could start down that path (unlike a true multiclass), we now have the paragon path, which always starts at 11th level.
So, instead of being able to customize your character's training and destiny level-to-level, you're restricted to being different from the fighter down the block only once you've survived a third of your adventuring career. Yes, sure, your feats still allow you to be unique, so now you're the fighter who uses a longsword instead of that guy beside you with the axe. Fighter, meet fighter.
"This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3E system," the Multiclassing post says. I'll say. So much for my human monk/fighter/sword of righteousness/forsaker/initiate of Pistis Sophia gestalt NPC that I never got to use. It will be interesting to see what future class-related releases are produced, either by Wizards or the fanbase, because I don't think the long-time players will stand to be throttled in this way.
I know that one of the tenets of 4e D&D was to make things simpler, and classes were certainly something that could overwhelm the newcomer. With the near-dozen classes in the 3.5 Player's Handbook and fifteen prestige classes in the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, players already had quite a few choices with single-classing or multiclassing.
Then add in all of the accessory books, which, whether a book on magic, evil or monsters, seemed to provide at least one more class or prestige class to the list. With so many (too many?) choices available, it became daunting to try and decide what the next hero of the world would look like.
Of course, there's nothing saying that you had to look through them all, that you had to stray from the starter classes, or even consider multiclassing (or prestige classes). In fact, I'd say that the idea of customizing your character to that extent (whether for power-gaming purposes or that perfect character theme) was the purview of advanced players who could handle an overwhelming amount of choice, and who relished piecing together that obscure combination that exemplified their character vision.
I think 4e has gone too far with simplifying these choices. The multiclassing article basically reduces the idea down to a few feats that give you another class's abilities. And instead of prestige classes, which had a minimum level at which you could start down that path (unlike a true multiclass), we now have the paragon path, which always starts at 11th level.
So, instead of being able to customize your character's training and destiny level-to-level, you're restricted to being different from the fighter down the block only once you've survived a third of your adventuring career. Yes, sure, your feats still allow you to be unique, so now you're the fighter who uses a longsword instead of that guy beside you with the axe. Fighter, meet fighter.
"This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3E system," the Multiclassing post says. I'll say. So much for my human monk/fighter/sword of righteousness/forsaker/initiate of Pistis Sophia gestalt NPC that I never got to use. It will be interesting to see what future class-related releases are produced, either by Wizards or the fanbase, because I don't think the long-time players will stand to be throttled in this way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
