Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 5061834" data-attributes="member: 71571">I'm going to call bullocks on two classes not aligning.What is happening is that two classes don't align -perfectly- and that there is a cost for doing so.For example, a Wizard and a Figher do not dovetail... but you have -exactly- the attribute support you need for this.&nbsp; You put points into Strength and Intellegence.&nbsp; You may be lacking in some secondary benefits for certain powers, but you're not doing it for perfect efficacy in one class, you're multiclassing for the purpose of hybridizing and expanding your breadth.What the system DOES cost you, however, is depth in a single class.&nbsp; You're making multiclassing better simply for the purpose of making it better, and willing to sacrifice single-classing's depth in order to do so... and that is a bad mistake with this system.What you end up with, then, are single-class characters that cannot enhance their secondary attributes so that multi-class characters that cannot enhance their secondary attributes can... do what, exactly?&nbsp; Cause the problem still exists... the new way, these multi-class characters STILL can't enhance their secondary attributes.There ARE ways around it.&nbsp; For example, Bards can take Combat Virtuoso and that solves the issue a LOT better than nerfing single-classes just because 'attribute dependancy is bad, mkay?'</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DracoSuave, post: 5061834, member: 71571"] I'm going to call bullocks on two classes not aligning. What is happening is that two classes don't align -perfectly- and that there is a cost for doing so. For example, a Wizard and a Figher do not dovetail... but you have -exactly- the attribute support you need for this. You put points into Strength and Intellegence. You may be lacking in some secondary benefits for certain powers, but you're not doing it for perfect efficacy in one class, you're multiclassing for the purpose of hybridizing and expanding your breadth. What the system DOES cost you, however, is depth in a single class. You're making multiclassing better simply for the purpose of making it better, and willing to sacrifice single-classing's depth in order to do so... and that is a bad mistake with this system. What you end up with, then, are single-class characters that cannot enhance their secondary attributes so that multi-class characters that cannot enhance their secondary attributes can... do what, exactly? Cause the problem still exists... the new way, these multi-class characters STILL can't enhance their secondary attributes. There ARE ways around it. For example, Bards can take Combat Virtuoso and that solves the issue a LOT better than nerfing single-classes just because 'attribute dependancy is bad, mkay?' [/QUOTE]

Verification