I have played and DM'd D&D for over 25 years. I was usually ok until we got to 3rd, and then things just got retarded if people wanted to use every feat available. I could only houserule so much and then finally threw my hands up. Maybe I'm just a dumb-ass.
Who's making the new thread for 4e? I'd like there to be monday/wednesday/friday updates on it like there were for the G&T smash bros threads, and i'm willing to put a bit of time into a new OP. Was there someone whose job it was going to be?
Once you pick a class, that's your class. You can take feats to get some of the powers and skills of another class (and only one other class), but if you're a Fighter, you are a Fighter.
So, you can be a Fighter with Wizard spells and training in Arcana, but you are still a Fighter. And you will always will be.
If you're a wizard, you're a wizard! You've trained, you've apprenticed, your 1st level of Wizard represents something special.
Just because you take some time to learn to swing a sword and pick up a few tricks does not make you a Fighter.
However, if you're truly dedicated to something like, Cleric/Wizard, you could just do that instead of taking a Paragon Path (which is detailed further in the Paragon Path article)
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
edited April 2008
Well since according to this I can still make a fighter/rogue or a fighter/mage or a cleric/wizard or whatever, I don't know that it's dead dead. I mean wouldn't you say true multi-classing died with 3rd, too, it was totally reworked from 2e as well?
I just wonder how Class + Class vs Class + Paragon will work out.
Well since according to this I can still make a fighter/rogue or a fighter/mage or a cleric/wizard or whatever, I don't know that it's dead dead. I mean wouldn't you say true multi-classing died with 3rd, too, it was totally reworked from 2e as well?
This is a good point.
In 3e you can't make a level 20 Theif/Fighter/Mage (unless of course he's level 60)
But y'know what I liked it better than slogging through the dual- or triple- classing of 2e.
Now in 4e you can't be a Monk 2 / Fighter 2 / Rogue 3 / Ninja 1 / etc / etc / etc
In all honesty it seems to me to be more of a return to form than the death of a feature. Seriously, in Ye Olde 1st Edition, you almost always just the one class, and if you took on two you knew it meant sacrificing specialization for utility.
I like this much better than muddying up your character concept with 6 different classes in search of the powers you want to have.
So nerd rage can go kick rocks for all I care.
I like this.
OhtheVogonity on
Oh freddled gruntbuggly...thy micturations are to me/ As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee
Posts
Heck, for the longest time we didn't even use gridmaps for combats. That lasted until someone made a Spiked Chain wielding tripper. God damn.
when reading the "Eternal Hero" entry?
You may all kiss my ring in thanks.
This does make it make more sense to me, yes.
GoFund The Portland Trans Pride March, or Show It To People, or Else!
I always knew you were at least 10th level.
Some of the people posting in that thread are Blithering idiots.
I had to stop because they were so stupid.
glad I could give you guys a glimpse into the vastly inferior Rpgnet community
"Here is (strawman that is easily disproven by the rules quoted), clearly this system is bad."
The worse part? No one is pointing this out to him, no one at all.
Basically, true multiclassing no longer exists.
Once you pick a class, that's your class. You can take feats to get some of the powers and skills of another class (and only one other class), but if you're a Fighter, you are a Fighter.
So, you can be a Fighter with Wizard spells and training in Arcana, but you are still a Fighter. And you will always will be.
True multi-classing is dead.
The nerd rage is going to be massive!
Also annoying and short lived.
If you're a wizard, you're a wizard! You've trained, you've apprenticed, your 1st level of Wizard represents something special.
Just because you take some time to learn to swing a sword and pick up a few tricks does not make you a Fighter.
However, if you're truly dedicated to something like, Cleric/Wizard, you could just do that instead of taking a Paragon Path (which is detailed further in the Paragon Path article)
I like it!
So, if you want to play a Wizard who picks up some Fighter powers, you should probably bust a feat on some sword proficiency too.
Unless you're some elven faggot.
Probably because Paladins are huge badasses
and Rangers are the easiest, because it's Strength or Dexterity.
Having a ranger that could sneak attack as a rogue of the same level once per encounter is a damn fine idea.
I just wonder how Class + Class vs Class + Paragon will work out.
On the plus side: I like new classes better anyways.
This is a good point.
In 3e you can't make a level 20 Theif/Fighter/Mage (unless of course he's level 60)
But y'know what I liked it better than slogging through the dual- or triple- classing of 2e.
Now in 4e you can't be a Monk 2 / Fighter 2 / Rogue 3 / Ninja 1 / etc / etc / etc
Perhaps this is not a bad thing.
I like this much better than muddying up your character concept with 6 different classes in search of the powers you want to have.
So nerd rage can go kick rocks for all I care.
I like this.