So if you wanted to see if Han Solo sneaks by Imperial Soldier #2, we'd see he has Sneak 3, so he'd flip 3 coins. The imperial might have Spot 1 coin, and so he flips one. Whoever has the most heads wins, so Han Solo could sneak past the guard almost assuredly.The real question of course however is... did Han shoot first?
He snuck past him... σ_σ
I think that rules influence a lot the roleplay. Just one example: if i can't make a rogue1/mage1 (rogue2/mage2, etc) how can i roleplay a rogue wizard?
By roleplaying a rogue wizard. It's really easy.
Out of curiosity, though, are you implying that you can't create a rogue wizard in 4e?
I think it depends upon your definition of roleplaying game. I don't want to mess things further in this thread but l;et's jsut say that by my definition 4th ed. does not meet the criteria.Again, we'd love to hear your personal definition of "roleplaying game".
No you don't. As has been made very clear by the mods. :D
Besides by the tone of your post it wouldn't change your opinion in anyway so why would I bother?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone can add "roleplaying" to any game out there. I could add it Chess, Go, Risk, Monopoly, Snakes and Ladders etc...
When I played 4th edition I felt like I was playing one of the above games I mentioned with role playing tacked on so you could still call it a "role playing" game.
4th edition is more about the powers and the build of your your character than the actual role playing. You can argue about it all day long but it doesn't change the fact. Since you invest so much time and energy into the powers and build of the classes then you want to use them as much as possible. Why would you even play 4th edition if you are going to have a social type game with little combat? All those powers sitting there without much use kinda sucks. At least in 3.5/Pathfinder you can actually choose classes that are going to fit social type games. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the class but I played a Noble from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book and it was great. You won't find classes anywhere close to this because they "all" have more combat than non-combat type powers.
It's not really the idea of not being able to role play but if it feels like I'm just throwing it in there then I don't really care for it.
That's my opinion.
I think that rules influence a lot the roleplay. Just one example: if i can't make a rogue1/mage1 (rogue2/mage2, etc) how can i roleplay a rogue wizard?By roleplaying a rogue wizard. It's really easy.
Out of curiosity, though, are you implying that you can't create a rogue wizard in 4e?
Maybe you're too young to remember but for a lot of years in D&D you could not play a rogue / wizard, there were 4 class (wizard, mage, rogue, fighter, cleric) for humans, then halfling, elf and dwarf didn't even get a class, they just were "elf", and so on. No multiclassing. With years they added something like druid, monk, but was not a great change.
This was not the only game with this problem.Speaking about 4e (even if i wasn't speaking about it) wich are the rules for multiclassing?
I think that rules influence a lot the roleplay. Just one example: if i can't make a rogue1/mage1 (rogue2/mage2, etc) how can i roleplay a rogue wizard?By roleplaying a rogue wizard. It's really easy.
Out of curiosity, though, are you implying that you can't create a rogue wizard in 4e?
Maybe you're too young to remember but for a lot of years in D&D you could not play a rogue / wizard, there were 4 class (wizard, mage, rogue, fighter, cleric) for humans, then halfling, elf and dwarf didn't even get a class, they just were "elf", and so on. No multiclassing. With years they added something like druid, monk, but was not a great change.
This was not the only game with this problem.
Speaking about 4e (even if i wasn't speaking about it) wich are the rules for multiclassing?
Core multiclassing rules in 4E effectively do not exist. They have a "multiclass" feat which you may take to declare yourself a multiclass X/Y, but all it does is give you a single one at-will ability from a chosen class as a 1/encounter ability, which is nigh useless. It also allows you to go into one of the other classes' advanced classes, which isn't very useful most of the time, and is actually broken (as in doesn't work) with ranger-multiclasses because all of their advanced classes require a class feature that the feat cannot grant you...
Which shows that the system was really poorly thought out to begin with.
Imagine Pathfinder, and if you wanted be a multiclass something/cleric, you take a feat that gives you channel energy 1d6 once per day. That's the beginning and end to your multiclassing in 4E.
Tnks Ashiel.
I remembered something like multiclassing or taking a second class after 10th level... well, this is a clear example of rules that doesn't help or allow proper roleplay.
Being able to not multiclass does not stop RP. You can still pretend to be class X/Y, even if you don't think the mechanics give you enough of class Y.
PS:I don't like their multiclass either. I was just making a point.
Tnks Ashiel.
I remembered something like multiclassing or taking a second class after 10th level... well, this is a clear example of rules that doesn't help or allow proper roleplay.
Being able to not multiclass does not stop RP. You can still pretend to be class X/Y, even if you don't think the mechanics give you enough of class Y.
PS:I don't like their multiclass either. I was just making a point.
Well, it's about as useful for roleplaying purposes as playing Fighter 20 and trying to pass yourself off as a wizard. "I am a Galstaff the Great, conjurer of fire and lightning, who calls forth the true names of creation to turn my enemies to frogs."
*cleave, cleave, stabbity, sword-slice #327, spit on somebody, shield bash, stabbity-rip-stab-stab* "Now you know the arcane might of Galstaff the Great!" ಠ_ಠ
I also didn't like Dual-classing in pre-3E. I don't know who came up with the rules surrounding it, but those rules are the anti-thesis for roleplaying; as they actively force you to metagame and play your PC in completely bizarre and illogical ways for it to even function.
Anyone can add "roleplaying" to any game out there. I could add it Chess, Go, Risk, Monopoly, Snakes and Ladders etc...
When I played 4th edition I felt like I was playing one of the above games I mentioned with role playing tacked on so you could still call it a "role playing" game.
4th edition is more about the powers and the build of your your character than the actual role playing. You can argue about it all day long but it doesn't change the fact. Since you invest so much time and energy into the powers and build of the classes then you want to use them as much as possible. Why would you even play 4th edition if you are going to have a social type game with little combat? All those powers sitting there without much use kinda sucks. At least in 3.5/Pathfinder you can actually choose classes that are going to fit social type games. I don't know if anyone is familiar with the class but I played a Noble from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting book and it was great. You won't find classes anywhere close to this because they "all" have more combat than non-combat type powers.
It's not really the idea of not being able to role play but if it feels like I'm just throwing it in there then I don't really care for it.
That's my opinion.
I'd love to hear your opinion on the ways this differs from roleplaying in previous editions of D&D, which, presumably, were not just "tacked on".
You should also keep in mind that I am very familiar with 4e, and that I am very familiar with 3.X and Pathfinder. So keep that in mind when responding; if you claim something is true that is not true, I will know.
Maybe you're too young to remember but for a lot of years in D&D you could not play a rogue / wizard, there were 4 class (wizard, mage, rogue, fighter, cleric) for humans, then halfling, elf and dwarf didn't even get a class, they just were "elf", and so on. No multiclassing. With years they added something like druid, monk, but was not a great change.
This was not the only game with this problem.
And tell me, AlecStorm: Was D&D back then a roleplaying game? I mean, after all, by your own admission you couldn't play a rogue/wizard in it. If the ability to play a rogue/wizard is a requirement for calling something a roleplaying game (mind you, that's a ridiculous requirement), then certainly the D&D of olde you refer to didn't qualify.
Speaking about 4e (even if i wasn't speaking about it) wich are the rules for multiclassing?
In 4e you have two distinct approaches to multiclassing that you can take.
The first is traditional multiclassing. You pick up a multiclass feat which gives you a limited class feature from another class, and also lets you choose rules options as though you were a member of that class. From there, you can invest further in your second class by taking additional multiclass feats, adding encounter, daily, and utility powers to your repertoire. And, finally, if you want to really express the second of your two classes, you can choose paragon path multiclassing, which replaces a normal paragon path with the ability to select powers from your second class.
The other option is hybrid multiclassing, which is where you literally become a half-and-half character. Half of your powers come from one class, half from the other. You receive a limited number of class features from each of your classes, and combined you have an array of features comparable to those a normal character would receive.
If you want an even balance between the two classes of your character, you should choose hybrid multiclassing. If you want the flexibility to choose how much of your character to invest in your second class, you should choose traditional multiclassing.
|
|
Both 3.5 and 4e are tactical wargame rules systems with some hat tipped off to mechanics that run off acting out your character.
3.5 tips that hat quite a bit more, and PF goes a little bit further with even more funky spells/feats/archetypes that work off circumstances that have to be roleplayed, but that's still just icing on the cake. The essential core of both systems are rules for killing things with stabs and castys.
Core multiclassing rules in 4E effectively do not exist.
This is false.
They have a "multiclass" feat which you may take to declare yourself a multiclass X/Y, but all it does is give you a single one at-will ability from a chosen class as a 1/encounter ability, which is nigh useless. It also allows you to go into one of the other classes' advanced classes, which isn't very useful most of the time, and is actually broken (as in doesn't work) with ranger-multiclasses because all of their advanced classes require a class feature that the feat cannot grant you...
Which shows that the system was really poorly thought out to begin with.
Imagine Pathfinder, and if you wanted be a multiclass something/cleric, you take a feat that gives you channel energy 1d6 once per day. That's the beginning and end to your multiclassing in 4E.
This is all false, as well, save the bit about not being able to qualify for the four Ranger paragon paths from the PHB 1 through traditional multiclassing (though, again, hybrid multiclassing would let you take them).
This leaves me to wonder a couple of things:
First, where did you learn all of this misinformation?
And second, why do you feel as though you understand the system well enough to talk about it with any kind of authority, when it's clear that you have some very basic misunderstandings of how the game actually works?
This would be like me trying to claim that, in Pathfinder, you can take one level of a second class and that's it - you're done with multiclassing and have no further options.
There is an awful lot of misinformation (not to mention some mind-boggling double-standards) floating around this thread with regards to 4e. There are a lot of people who should be asking more questions and giving out fewer answers. I daresay that some of you hate a game that doesn't actually exist; rather, you have a mental conception of how you think 4e must work that you find repulsive, but that mental conception may have little or nothing in common with the actual game.
Heh... my favorite "multiclass" rule in 4e is that taking "spiked chain" as a weapon proficiency is a "multiclass" choice. Meaning if you use a spiked chain (as my ranger does) you can not multiclass even a tiny little bit.
The sort of multiclassing that Ashiel is talking about is a horrible mechanical limitation, but frankly I don't see it as much of a role playing one.
That's because I don't care what class you play in 4e, you might as well be a sword swinging wizard anyway.
For example, my ranger can create two-way portals which allow allies (not enemies) to teleport from one square to another. Our fighter can somehow force the enemy around him to rush to his side. Our rogue teleports all over the place.
I could easily play my ranger as a fighter/wizard and role play a wide range of encounter or daily powers as spells, while playing others as weapon attacks. Any class can do that in 4e. In that sense role play opportunities are actually increased from other versions of the game since I could role play my ranger as just about any PF style of class except "healer." Also, the skill-based classes are even more wide open since there are no "only rogues can do that" skills or limitations. My ranger is as good as our rogue at opening doors, disabling traps, sneaking around... and because his wisdom is fairly decent, he's actually even better than our rogue at locating traps, finding secret doors and other "roguey" stuff.
In fact I would like to see PF adopt some of the fungible skill model of 4e.
There really is no "caster/non-caster" problem in 4e because there is no such thing as a pure caster or a pure non-caster. Every class is both simultaneously.
The other option is hybrid multiclassing, which is where you literally become a half-and-half character. Half of your powers come from one class, half from the other. You receive a limited number of class features from each of your classes, and combined you have an array of features comparable to those a normal character would receive.
Isn't that closer to traditional D&D multi-classing though? By traditional I mean pre-3E.
The other option is hybrid multiclassing, which is where you literally become a half-and-half character. Half of your powers come from one class, half from the other. You receive a limited number of class features from each of your classes, and combined you have an array of features comparable to those a normal character would receive.Isn't that closer to traditional D&D multi-classing though? By traditional I mean pre-3E.
Yes. I used the word "traditional" to refer to the fact that it was outlined in the first PHB, as opposed to the hybrid system which was developed and released later.
Heh... my favorite "multiclass" rule in 4e is that taking "spiked chain" as a weapon proficiency is a "multiclass" choice. Meaning if you use a spiked chain (as my ranger does) you can not multiclass even a tiny little bit.
This is also misinformation.
You can take proficiency in the spiked chain just like you would pick up any superior weapon - by taking the Superior Weapon Proficiency feat and selecting spiked chain.
What you've chosen is a different option entirely - you chose the Spiked Chain Training feat, the first feat in the Training/Novice/Expert/Specialist tree. These trees (there are a bunch out there) allow you to effectively multiclass as a weapon specialist, gaining powers and features unique to the weapon you are specializing in. Note that the Spiked Chain Training feat you chose doesn't just give you proficiency; it also allows you to wield the spiked chain in ways that a normal character cannot - in this case, wielding it as a double weapon rather than a two-handed one.
If you wanted to avoid using up your ability to multiclass, you could have just picked up the proficiency feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh... my favorite "multiclass" rule in 4e is that taking "spiked chain" as a weapon proficiency is a "multiclass" choice. Meaning if you use a spiked chain (as my ranger does) you can not multiclass even a tiny little bit.This is also misinformation.
You can take proficiency in the spiked chain just like you would pick up any superior weapon - by taking the Superior Weapon Proficiency feat and selecting spiked chain.
What you've chosen is a different option entirely - you chose the Spiked Chain Training feat, the first feat in the Training/Novice/Expert/Specialist tree. These trees (there are a bunch out there) allow you to effectively multiclass as a weapon specialist, gaining powers and features unique to the weapon you are specializing in. Note that the Spiked Chain Training feat you chose doesn't just give you proficiency; it also allows you to wield the spiked chain in ways that a normal character cannot - in this case, wielding it as a double weapon rather than a two-handed one.
If you wanted to avoid using up your ability to multiclass, you could have just picked up the proficiency feat.
Scott, if you can justify learning how to specialize in a weapon as being the same thing as multi-classing, then good for you. Your rules rationalization skills are far ahead of mine.
It's a weapon. If I wanted to learn how to use a spiked chain as a double weapon, how in any reasonable world would that affect my ability to dabble in a little bit of wizardry?
It's an absurd rule. An indefensible rule. A stupid rule.
Like a lot of 4e rules are stupid.
I like 4e, I play 4e. I enjoy playing 4e. But the game has many horrible rules problems, was poorly tested, is a rat's nest of errata fixing errata fixing errata, and as far as I can tell the entire magic item mechanic was grafted on at the last minute and is totally and completely broken.
There is an awful lot of misinformation (not to mention some mind-boggling double-standards) floating around this thread with regards to 4e. There are a lot of people who should be asking more questions and giving out fewer answers. I daresay that some of you hate a game that doesn't actually exist; rather, you have a mental conception of how you think 4e must work that you find repulsive, but that mental conception may have little or nothing in common with the actual game.
4E has had rules changes since it came out. Many of us stopped playing before those rule changes took place, and never bothered to learn about the changes. That is not an excuse though, just an observation.
It also does not help than many people don't know about any changes that were made or specifically what got changed.
Scott, if you can justify learning how to specialize in a weapon as being the same thing as multi-classing, then good for you. Your rules rationalization skills are far ahead of mine.
That wasn't the issue. You were claiming that you had to use up your ability to multiclass in order to be proficient in the spiked chain. I just wanted to make sure no one was under the impression that this was true.
That said, it's really no different from the Exotic Weapon Master prestige class from 3/3.5. Which, as you'll recall, was multiclassing. So I really don't think I need to "justify" it. The justification was done a long time ago, in an earlier edition of D&D.
Now, if your issue is with the fact that once you pick a multiclass, you are locked into it (unless you retrain), then yes, that's kind of a dumb rule.
There is an awful lot of misinformation (not to mention some mind-boggling double-standards) floating around this thread with regards to 4e. There are a lot of people who should be asking more questions and giving out fewer answers. I daresay that some of you hate a game that doesn't actually exist; rather, you have a mental conception of how you think 4e must work that you find repulsive, but that mental conception may have little or nothing in common with the actual game.4E has had rules changes since it came out. Many of us stopped playing before those rule changes took place, and never bothered to learn about the changes. That is not an excuse though, just an observation.
That's understandable, but unfortunately a lot of the misinformation in here (like a single feat being the extent of multiclassing in core 4e) was still misinformation the day the game came out. There have always been more options for multiclassing than just a single feat.
I certainly don't want to get pegged as a 4e basher. I like the game. I think the tactical capabilities of the game are a huge improvement over previous versions of the game. I love the attack rolls against varying forms of defense taking the place of saving throws. I love how my wizard can be the sneaky skill-monkey if I really want to do that.
Pathfinder has lots of stupid rules too.
To get this back onto the track of "role playing in 4e" put me down as one who feels that role playing is perfectly fine in 4e. I role play the heck out of my ranger and have a blast doing it.
And Scott, yes, you are right, I did mis-state the spiked chain use, but not deliberately. You are right, I could have chosen to use a "plain vanilla" spiked chain as written, but I preferred to have a weapon that was actually useful.
Core multiclassing rules in 4E effectively do not exist.This is false.
They have a "multiclass" feat which you may take to declare yourself a multiclass X/Y, but all it does is give you a single one at-will ability from a chosen class as a 1/encounter ability, which is nigh useless. It also allows you to go into one of the other classes' advanced classes, which isn't very useful most of the time, and is actually broken (as in doesn't work) with ranger-multiclasses because all of their advanced classes require a class feature that the feat cannot grant you...
Which shows that the system was really poorly thought out to begin with.
Imagine Pathfinder, and if you wanted be a multiclass something/cleric, you take a feat that gives you channel energy 1d6 once per day. That's the beginning and end to your multiclassing in 4E.
This is all false, as well, save the bit about not being able to qualify for the four Ranger paragon paths from the PHB 1 through traditional multiclassing (though, again, hybrid multiclassing would let you take them).
This leaves me to wonder a couple of things:
First, where did you learn all of this misinformation?
My copy of the 4E core rules, Player's Handbook, specifically. It's all detailed on page 208 of the 4E PHB. All the multiclassing feats are specific to certain classes. Once you take one, you cannot take another associated with a different class (so no fighter/rogue/wizards for you class elf lovers). The feats let you pick a single class skill from that class to make your own, and you get one of the classes' at-will or static abilities that they can normally use infinitely as a 1/encounter effect; effectively making them very "bleh". Sneak attack 1/encounter? *barf*
It also notes that it allows you to pick up feats associated with your gained power. So if you want to waste a feat on Backstabber so your 1/encounter +1d6 sneak attack becomes a 1/encounter +1d8 sneak attack, you can do so, despite there being virtually no reason to ever flush your feats down the toilet like that.
Finally, you can spend yet more feats to trade out 1 utility power, 1 daily power, and 1 encounter power, but you have to be 4th, 8th, and 10th level respectively to do so, and can only do so once. If you have now invested the multiclass feat, and all three power swap feats, then you can forgo the benefit of being able to choose a paragon class (which removes the benefit for entering a Paragon class normally restricted to your other class) to actually get a few of the basic powers from your supposed multiclass, but you generally get a short stick for it. See, at 11th level (when you can do this, assuming you have gotten all those other feats prior to this, including the one requiring level 10) then you are allowed to TRADE one of your existing at-will powers for one of your mutliclass' at-will powers.
Example: You're a Fighter who has had Cleave since 1st level. You've slugged your way to 11th level and burned 4 of your feats and your dignity to be a Fighter that calls himself a wizard. Thus far, you've not had anything good to show for it, except 1/encounter magic missile, which is weak enough that it's intended to be spammed. Now you're 11th level, so you get to actually make your magic missile at-will...except you have to give up that Cleave at-will ability you've had all this time. Yeah, sucks to be you.
Finally, at levels 11, 12, and 20th, you can choose a more minor ability from your multiclass to add, instead of getting an appropriately leveled Paragon power.
That's also before you consider that due to the way the mechanics of 4E works, it's generally all or nothing. Mathematically, having half your junk based on Strength and the other half on Intelligence is terrible, and less do-able than in 3.x.
And second, why do you feel as though you understand the system well enough to talk about it with any kind of authority, when it's clear that you have some very basic misunderstandings of how the game actually works?
By very basic misunderstandings, you mean what is written in the core rulebook? Look, I realize that 4E has been errata'd to hell and back, but I'm going by the core books here, as they were printed when I got 'em. Multi-classing is effectively non existent. World of Warcraft has a better multiclassing system with its Talent Tree system (though they won't have their classic talent trees for long).
This would be like me trying to claim that, in Pathfinder, you can take one level of a second class and that's it - you're done with multiclassing and have no further options.
Options that suck aren't really options. You're basically trading feats for "meh" options. There are a few paragon classes in 4E that cross reasonably. The system doesn't even work correctly when you try to use the Ranger multiclass feat. Alternatively you give up your option to even go into a Paragon class to get re-fried versions of the class you really wanted to mutliclass with way back when, but now most of those don't matter as much now, since they are both sub-leveled and have to be used in place of other abilities.
So yeah, it would be about the same if you claimed that a Pathfinder equivalent was being a wizard. Spending a feat to claim Stealth as a class skill and get sneak attack +1d6 once per day (instead of every attack). Then spending 3 more feats (out of the 5 you get from 2-10th) to trade your familiar, wizard school, and bonus feats for trapfinding, and a couple of rogue talents. Then once you finally hit 11th level, you get to trade your ability to cast your basic spells for sneak attack proper, and trade your 11th level class feature for a 7th level rogue class feature, then repeat this horrible trading twice more at higher levels.
All the while now likely having to split your attention between both Intelligence and Dexterity, but knowing that unlike a realistic world, everything scales up in difficulty with your level, so jumping a pit back at 1st level is now harder than jumping a pit at 11th level, but you've had to split your advancements between two disciplines while attaining a net loss because you have traded feats for nothing.
Players Handbook. I don't find the system to be lacking because I didn't read the rules and actually try to play with them. I GMed some games, and played in other games run by other GMs. It was weighed, it was measured, and it was found wanting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How did we get derailed from the caster/martial disparity in PF into a discussion of 4E?
Maybe you're too young to remember but for a lot of years in D&D you could not play a rogue / wizard, there were 4 class (wizard, mage, rogue, fighter, cleric) for humans, then halfling, elf and dwarf didn't even get a class, they just were "elf", and so on. No multiclassing. With years they added something like druid, monk, but was not a great change.
This was not the only game with this problem.And tell me, AlecStorm: Was D&D back then a roleplaying game? I mean, after all, by your own admission you couldn't play a rogue/wizard in it. If the ability to play a rogue/wizard is a requirement for calling something a roleplaying game (mind you, that's a ridiculous requirement), then certainly the D&D of olde you refer to didn't qualify.
Speaking about 4e (even if i wasn't speaking about it) wich are the rules for multiclassing?In 4e you have two distinct approaches to multiclassing that you can take.
The first is traditional multiclassing. You pick up a multiclass feat which gives you a limited class feature from another class, and also lets you choose rules options as though you were a member of that class. From there, you can invest further in your second class by taking additional multiclass feats, adding encounter, daily, and utility powers to your repertoire. And, finally, if you want to really express the second of your two classes, you can choose paragon path multiclassing, which replaces a normal paragon path with the ability to select powers from your second class.
The other option is hybrid multiclassing, which is where you literally become a half-and-half character. Half of your powers come from one class, half from the other. You receive a limited number of class features from each of your classes, and combined you have an array of features comparable to those a normal character would receive.
If you want an even balance between the two classes of your character, you should choose hybrid multiclassing. If you want the flexibility to choose...
Sure that old d&d was a RPG. It was the first and "only" RPG. It had a great number of limitation on rules that limited RPG. Since we assumed that everyone can roleplay even with Risiko so we assume that old d&d, 4E, etc are all RPG. Well, some RPG work better than other, some not.
My copy of the 4E core rules, Player's Handbook, specifically. It's all detailed on page 208 of the 4E PHB. All the multiclassing feats are specific to certain classes. Once you take one, you cannot take another associated with a different class (so no fighter/rogue/wizards for you class elf lovers).
Look, you just got finished claiming that a single feat was the total extent of multiclassing in core 4e.
That's false.
Demonstrably false.
Not only do you have a basic array of multiclass feats, unique to each class, but you also have a series of progressively more advanced feats that further invest you in your second class. You can also pick rules options normally available only to that specific class. And, finally, you have the option to paragon multiclass (which is not the same as choosing a paragon path from your second class!) in order to pick up even more powers from the second class.
I'm not going to guess at why you decided to present multiclassing in 4e the way you did. But the fact remains that you presented it in a way that made it seem far more limited and token than it actually is.
The feats let you pick a single class skill from that class to make your own, and you get one of the classes' at-will or static abilities that they can normally use infinitely as a 1/encounter effect; effectively making them very "bleh". Sneak attack 1/encounter? *barf*
It also notes that it allows you to pick up feats associated with your gained power. So if you want to waste a feat on Backstabber so your 1/encounter +1d6 sneak attack becomes a 1/encounter +1d8 sneak attack, you can do so, despite there being virtually no reason to ever flush your feats down the toilet like that.
Some of the strongest character concepts in the game are predicated on the ability to multiclass in order to qualify for certain feats, powers, or paragon paths. You haven't played the game enough to make statements like "despite there being virtually no reason to ever flush your feats down the toilet like that." As evidenced by the fact that you think the Sneak Attack class feature deals 1d6 damage (it's actually 2d6 right from the get-go).
How did we get derailed from the caster/martial disparity in PF into a discussion of 4E?
Same way the thread started; "because".
How did we get derailed from the caster/martial disparity in PF into a discussion of 4E?
Some people thought that they'd just casually mention how 4e isn't really a roleplaying game in a thread about casters vs. non-casters.
I don't really understand it, either.
|
|
There is an awful lot of misinformation (not to mention some mind-boggling double-standards) floating around this thread with regards to 4e. There are a lot of people who should be asking more questions and giving out fewer answers. I daresay that some of you hate a game that doesn't actually exist; rather, you have a mental conception of how you think 4e must work that you find repulsive, but that mental conception may have little or nothing in common with the actual game.
And what makes you the authority on 4e that you can claim that "misinformation" is floating around? Let me introduce you to the a word called "Opinion". Try it sometime.
|
|
My copy of the 4E core rules, Player's Handbook, specifically. It's all detailed on page 208 of the 4E PHB. All the multiclassing feats are specific to certain classes. Once you take one, you cannot take another associated with a different class (so no fighter/rogue/wizards for you class elf lovers).Look, you just got finished claiming that a single feat was the total extent of multiclassing in core 4e.
That's false.
Demonstrably false.
Not only do you have a basic array of multiclass feats, unique to each class, but you also have a series of progressively more advanced feats that further invest you in your second class. You can also pick rules options normally available only to that specific class. And, finally, you have the option to paragon multiclass (which is not the same as choosing a paragon path from your second class!) in order to pick up even more powers from the second class.
I'm not going to guess at why you decided to present multiclassing in 4e the way you did. But the fact remains that you presented it in a way that made it seem far more limited and token than it actually is.
Some of the strongest character concepts in the game are predicated on the ability to multiclass in order to qualify for certain feats, powers, or paragon paths. You haven't played the game enough to make statements like "despite there being virtually no reason to ever...The feats let you pick a single class skill from that class to make your own, and you get one of the classes' at-will or static abilities that they can normally use infinitely as a 1/encounter effect; effectively making them very "bleh". Sneak attack 1/encounter? *barf*
It also notes that it allows you to pick up feats associated with your gained power. So if you want to waste a feat on Backstabber so your 1/encounter +1d6 sneak attack becomes a 1/encounter +1d8 sneak attack, you can do so, despite there being virtually no reason to ever flush your feats down the toilet like that.
Actually multi-classing is limited. Just because you may have some powers open to you doesn't mean you will benefit from them. Hybrids is actually a proper multi-classing system in 4th edition.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How did we get derailed from the caster/martial disparity in PF into a discussion of 4E?Some people thought that they'd just casually mention how 4e isn't really a roleplaying game in a thread about casters vs. non-casters.
I don't really understand it, either.
Quick question: If you are planning a very social type game why would you run 4th edition?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I vote all the 4e stuff goes to a new thread...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, stop making me want to help out Scott, this is wrong! ;-)
Yeah, no kidding.
And what makes you the authority on 4e that you can claim that "misinformation" is floating around? Let me introduce you to the a word called "Opinion". Try it sometime.
It is not an "opinion" that multiclassing in core 4e consists of more than a single feat, anymore than it is an "opinion" that the Pathfinder Rogue class features a d8 hit die.
Hey, everyone. A nice little pointer on internet discussions: When someone tries to label demonstrably factual information as "opinion", they're probably not that interested in getting to the truth of the matter.
Quick question: If you are planning a very social type game why would you run 4th edition?How did we get derailed from the caster/martial disparity in PF into a discussion of 4E?Some people thought that they'd just casually mention how 4e isn't really a roleplaying game in a thread about casters vs. non-casters.
I don't really understand it, either.
If I was planning on a very social-type game (to the exclusion of significant focus on other aspects of play), I wouldn't run D&D, period. I don't know why anyone would. I'd run any of the myriad fantastic roleplaying game systems that provide robust frameworks for social interaction between players and NPCs, and include subsystems for players occasionally taking the reins in the storytelling department.
Out of curiosity, if you were planning a very social-type game, why would you run D&D?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quick question: If you are planning a very social type game why would you run 4th edition?How did we get derailed from the caster/martial disparity in PF into a discussion of 4E?Some people thought that they'd just casually mention how 4e isn't really a roleplaying game in a thread about casters vs. non-casters.
I don't really understand it, either.
If I was planning on a very social-type game (to the exclusion of significant focus on other aspects of play), I wouldn't run D&D, period. I don't know why anyone would. I'd run any of the myriad fantastic roleplaying game systems that provide robust frameworks for social interaction between players and NPCs, and include subsystems for players occasionally taking the reins in the storytelling department.
Out of curiosity, if you were planning a very social-type game, why would you run D&D?
Actually I would run a 3.5/Pathfinder combo because the system is not only great for combat but it's also great for non-combat situations. Classes such as the Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Bard, Noble, Sorcerer, and a host of other classes are actually great in a social type game. I have run many 3.5 social games with very little combat. In 3.5/Pathfinder you can actually build your character to interact with very little combat. The classes system and the skills system allow you to build it however you want.
4th edition on the other hand is a lot different when it comes to social games. 4th edition is like buying a massive, 4x4 SUV with all the trimmings just to ride down the road once a week to the shops.
Pathfinder/3.5 gives me the best of both worlds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*cleave, cleave, stabbity, sword-slice #327, spit on somebody, shield bash, stabbity-rip-stab-stab* "Now you know the arcane might of Galstaff the Great!" ಠ_ಠ
You joke but I actually had a troll barbarian character in one of my games who wore a potato sack etched with "runes" and called himself "the archmagi" he beat people to death with his polearm because he "didnt want to waste his vast power on such simpleton mortals".
Out of curiosity, if you were planning a very social-type game, why would you run D&D?
Because you can take the 3.5/PF combat system, swap out the physical stats (str, dex and con) for the mental (int, wis and cha) and have a very workable social interaction system; it requires some tweaking (HD/BAB progression springs to mind) but the system works.
Actually I would run a 3.5/Pathfinder combo because the system is not only great for combat but it's also great for non-combat situations.
If your priority is game system support for deep, engaging, evocative social interaction, D&D is not the system for you, no matter the edition.
If you want a nice mix of combat facilitation, interaction facilitation, and exploration facilitation, then 4e works best, in my opinion. Pathfinder comes in a close second.
|
|
Actually I would run a 3.5/Pathfinder combo because the system is not only great for combat but it's also great for non-combat situations.If your priority is game system support for deep, engaging, evocative social interaction, D&D is not the system for you, no matter the edition.
If you want a nice mix of combat facilitation, interaction facilitation, and exploration facilitation, then 4e works best, in my opinion. Pathfinder comes in a close second.
I agree with almost everything Scott wrote, except for one small bit at which we both know where we stand on, so let's call it a day and go back to caster-martial disparity in Pathfinder, eh?
When I played 4th edition I felt like I was playing one of the above games I mentioned with role playing tacked on so you could still call it a "role playing" game.
What I find funny is, this feels true of every edition of D&D. Oh wait, wasn't the origin of D&D a wargame with some role-playing "tacked on"?
I mean, go back and look at the fighter in early games. BECMI he got like, two special powers. Set spear against charge and charge with lance. He might get a few more later if he qualifies for paladin. He doesn't get any ability beyond combat. In AD&D he starts to get a few utility powers, like Bend Bars.
Anyway, as an old-school player, I'm with Scott on this. 4E is just as much an RPG as any other version of D&D. I've seen people hack and slash without role-playing for almost as long as I've been playing, it's not unique to any system.
I should note, my recent games of Risk Legacy have been awesome and has had a surprising amount of role-playing. Stupid Khan, grrr.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I played 4th edition I felt like I was playing one of the above games I mentioned with role playing tacked on so you could still call it a "role playing" game.What I find funny is, this feels true of every edition of D&D. Oh wait, wasn't the origin of D&D a wargame with some role-playing "tacked on"?
I mean, go back and look at the fighter in early games. BECMI he got like, two special powers. Set spear against charge and charge with lance. He might get a few more later if he qualifies for paladin. He doesn't get any ability beyond combat. In AD&D he starts to get a few utility powers, like Bend Bars.
Anyway, as an old-school player, I'm with Scott on this. 4E is just as much an RPG as any other version of D&D. I've seen people hack and slash without role-playing for almost as long as I've been playing, it's not unique to any system.
I should note, my recent games of Risk Legacy have been awesome and has had a surprising amount of role-playing. Stupid Khan, grrr.
Problem #1: That was then and this is now. I can't stand the excuse about D&D starting out as a wargame, like that really changes anything. It's now a role playing game and not a wargame anymore. 4th edition thought they would try and bring this back but sprinkle a little role playing into the mix but it failed. The edition is already being shelved and a new one is taking it's place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread has the attention span of a goldfish...
|
|
Actually I would run a 3.5/Pathfinder combo because the system is not only great for combat but it's also great for non-combat situations.If your priority is game system support for deep, engaging, evocative social interaction, D&D is not the system for you, no matter the edition.
If you want a nice mix of combat facilitation, interaction facilitation, and exploration facilitation, then 4e works best, in my opinion. Pathfinder comes in a close second.
Hold on a moment! I just told you that D&D/Pathfinder does all this for me, now whether or not it works for you is a personal problem and not one of the edition. I'm sorry but you aren't the end all decision maker as to what edition works for someone else. I have already explained and given you classes that can actually achieve everything that you have mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem #1: That was then and this is now. I can't stand the excuse about D&D starting out as a wargame, like that really changes anything. It's now a role playing game and not a wargame anymore. 4th edition thought they would try and bring this back but sprinkle a little role playing into the mix but it failed. The edition is already being shelved and a new one is taking it's place.
But that's my point, I don't see a change. People have been playing D&D as more "wargame" for as long as it existed. Other people have played a more "social" game for as long as it existed. Most people are somewhere in the middle. This is true for every edition of D&D.
4th Edition has skills and feats, the biggest tools of character customization that 3E added. If you want to see how great 4th edition can be as a social game, check out Wolfgang Baur's Courts of the Shadow Fey. Lot's of politics and intrigue.
As someone who plays a lot of different games, the idea that 3.X and 4E are all that different just seems laughable. Go check out Fate, Houses of the Blooded, Dogs in the Vineyard, or Mouse Guard for some great RPGs that have interesting social conflict resolution systems.
I would argue that 4th Edition didn't fail (as if the #1 RPG in the world for 4 years straight is a failure). D&D keeps evolving. New ideas are tried and tested. The game get stronger every time.
|
|
I would argue that 4th Edition didn't fail (as if the #1 RPG in the world for 4 years straight is a failure). D&D keeps evolving. New ideas are tried and tested. The game get stronger every time.
It wasn't #1 for four years. Pathfinder would slide into #1 at times. Also, the D&D name carried it along and there were no other systems out there that was like it. If it was so great then why is it the shortest edition to date?
I don't know about you but I play D&D/Pathfinder as a role playing game and not a wargame. We always have an equal mixture of combat and non-combat.
Hold on a moment! I just told you that D&D/Pathfinder does all this for me, now whether or not it works for you is a personal problem and not one of the edition. I'm sorry but you aren't the end all decision maker as to what edition works for someone else. I have already explained and given you classes that can actually achieve everything that you have mentioned.
This immediately following a post where you called 4th Edition a failure, and where you've repeatedly attempted to be the "end all decision maker" as to whether 4e is a roleplaying game or wargame.
Give it a rest.
It wasn't #1 for four years. Pathfinder would slide into #1 at times. Also, the D&D name carried it along and there were no other systems out there that was like it. If it was so great then why is it the shortest edition to date?
To your mind, is a game's worth represented by how long it's printed for?