D&D 4th Ed. Character building

[Valmy]

So the basic evolution is that, in 3rd, they gut multi class characters and then, in 4th, they introduce a bunch of new character classes that are basically hybrids of existing classes? In other words, we're basically back where we started but with sillier class names?

I hated multi-class characters in 3rd ed.  They did it much better in 2nd edition, which is pretty damning considering how archaic the first two editions were.

I really dislike the fascination with more and more classes, they do not really add anything to the game besides making it really really complex and selling more supplements.

[Jacob]

I really dislike the fascination with more and more classes, they do not really add anything to the game besides making it really really complex and selling more supplements.

Then don't play with the additional supplements.  4E is perfectly playable with just the PHB and DMG (and you'd probably want the MM as well).  Some of us enjoy the additional stuff and it has the added benefit of making money for the owners of the property.

[Jacob]

So the basic evolution is that, in 3rd, they gut multi class characters and then, in 4th, they introduce a bunch of new character classes that are basically hybrids of existing classes? In other words, we're basically back where we started but with sillier class names?

Not really, no.  Not yet, anyhow.

[vinraith]

OK then

So the basic evolution is that, in 3rd, they gut multi class characters and then, in 4th, they introduce a bunch of new character classes that are basically hybrids of existing classes? In other words, we're basically back where we started but with sillier class names?

Not really, no.  Not yet, anyhow.

OK then, what distinguishes a sword mage from a fighter/mage? Honest question, mind you, my only exposure to these new classes is through NWN 2. There, at least, several new classes looked like an attempt to restore the ability to play a multiclass caster/melee character without actually reinstating viable multiclassing. The others looked like an attempt to take the "sorceror" idea (ie casters for people that don't want to plan) and apply it to all the other caster types. Maybe it's different in the final rule books?

[Tamas]

Fancy classnames > multicasting

As much as I am against over-rulification in RPGs, easy flavor rules enchance the experience, bland lawyering (fighter/mage, cleric/mage, wtf?) reduces it.

[Jacob]

OK then, what distinguishes a sword mage from a fighter/mage? Honest question, mind you, my only exposure to these new classes is through NWN 2. There, at least, several new classes looked like an attempt to restore the ability to play a multiclass caster/melee character without actually reinstating viable multiclassing. The others looked like an attempt to take the "sorceror" idea (ie casters for people that don't want to plan) and apply it to all the other caster types. Maybe it's different in the final rule books?

Multi-classing is coming back at some point, I believe.

Anyways, to compare swordmages and fighters:

Both are defender classes, so they're supposed to get in the oppositions attention, make the opposition attack them, and still be able to keep going.

Flavour wise, the fighter is about martial prowess and all that goes with it.  He wears a lot of armour, usually, and a lot hinges on what sort of weapon he chooses to specialize in: a polearm fighter feels different from a 2-hand axe fighter feels different from a sword and board fighter and so on.  His most important stat is Str, which will flavour other parts of his character.  Conversely, the swordmage always uses a sword, is lightly armoured and probably won't use a shield.  He is bonded to his specific sword and can do things like summoning it to him and so on.  His attacks are either sword based or, more commonly, magic channeled through his sword.  His primary stat is Int, which will flavour other parts of his character as well.

In terms of actual play, the fighter does his job by getting right in the face of the opposition, making it so they can't move around or hurt anyone else without being punished for it.  The swordmage is much more mobile and range based, and can get some good mileage of kiting like they do in mmos.

The thing with 4E, the differences show better in actual play than they do in discussion.  The various different classes, so far and to me, seem quite different in actual play.

[Valmy]

Then don't play with the additional supplements.  4E is perfectly playable with just the PHB and DMG (and you'd probably want the MM as well).  Some of us enjoy the additional stuff and it has the added benefit of making money for the owners of the property.

Well I think the continued effect of all the additional stuff is to unbalance and weaken the game and have almost always been poorly designed.  Obviously I do not have to play with any rules at all, I could write my own D&D rules using all the best qualities of the editions if I wanted to.  Even so I still have an opinion on the rules and things about D&D I do not like regardless of who or who does not enjoy what.

[Savonarola]

Does it really matter?  No matter what, you'll be considered 'Artillery' or some such nonsense.

Unfortunately. 

I just wanna kill things.  Wizards are teh suck now.  I just wanna be an elven multi-class fighter-magic user.

I've found that most people try to play wizards as damage dealers.  In my opinion this is a mistake; wizards excel at controlling the battlefield by creating difficult terrain, barriers and effects on other people.  I've had a ball thwarting the DM's plans with an orb focus wizard.

[Hansmeister]

I believe there is a warlock and a sword mage, and probably a bard, not sure about anybody else.

That means you already have a defender, a leader, and a striker.  You're still missing a controller, which are wizards, invokers, and druids.

If you like to play a gnome might I suggest a Gnome Wizard, using an orb implement with focus on illusion spells(PH2)?

[Jacob]

Well I think the continued effect of all the additional stuff is to unbalance and weaken the game and have almost always been poorly designed.  Obviously I do not have to play with any rules at all, I could write my own D&D rules using all the best qualities of the editions if I wanted to.  Even so I still have an opinion on the rules and things about D&D I do not like regardless of who or who does not enjoy what.

Your opinion would be more persuasive if it was based on having played the game.

In my practical experience, the rules have been well designed and the further expansions have not weakened or unbalanced them.  Of course, this shouldn't force you to change your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to.

[Valmy]

Your opinion would be more persuasive if it was based on having played the game.

My opinion was based on 3E and the prestige classes and 2E and the kits and so forth.  That I have alot of experience with.  My comment was based on that previous experience.  I nowhere implied I was critisizing 4E in particular just that particular phenomenon in D&D.

In my practical experience, the rules have been well designed and the further expansions have not weakened or unbalanced them.  Of course, this shouldn't force you to change your opinion, which you are perfectly entitled to.

Wow you have got to be smoking some powerful crack.  Enormously unbalanced new rules and poorly tested supplements goes right back to the infamous Unearthed Arcana book in 1E.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I believe there is a warlock and a sword mage, and probably a bard, not sure about anybody else.

That means you already have a defender, a leader, and a striker.  You're still missing a controller, which are wizards, invokers, and druids.

If you like to play a gnome might I suggest a Gnome Wizard, using an orb implement with focus on illusion spells(PH2)?

That's not a bad idea at all. 

I was at the comic book store during the big Free Comic Book Day sale on Saturday and saw dozens of 2nd Ed books beign sold off. I was impressed by someone buying 5 Spell Comendium books at once.  Do people actually read through all of them and pick out one or two new spells a level?

[Jacob]

My opinion was based on 3E and the prestige classes and 2E and the kits and so forth.  That I have alot of experience with.  My comment was based on that previous experience.  I nowhere implied I was critisizing 4E in particular just that particular phenomenon in D&D.

Ah ok.  I was talking about 4E, and being wary of the same phenomenon for the same reason you mentioned, have been pleasantly surprised so far.  This is what I was talking about.

There is still room for bloat and power creep, but so far so good.

Wow you have got to be smoking some powerful crack.  Enormously unbalanced new rules and poorly tested supplements goes right back to the infamous Unearthed Arcana book in 1E.

It certainly does.  4E has, so far, been an enormous improvement though it is not perfect.  That's what I've been talking about.  My point really is that before you condemn 4E as doing the same thing as the previous editions did, try it out.  Because it seems as if they've tried to address that issue while also addressing the economical one (namely that they need to produce more product that people buy).

[Darth Wagtaros]

Apparently since the last time I spoke to the DM the entire party became Arcane spellhurlers.  All of them.  So I am gonna have to rethink the cool Gnome illusionist.  While I hate the idea of becoming the de facto human shield I'd like the party to not get mauled every session.

So: Paladin of Kelemvor, Cleric of Sune, Warlord in the service of Paladine, or a Dragonborn rogue are my top favorites.

[Valmy]

Warlord in the service of Paladine

Dragonlance-FR hybrid campaign?