Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tyler Do'Urden" data-source="post: 3260928" data-attributes="member: 4601">Yes, it was, and I explained why.You're assuming that- a) we want to play two classes from the beginning of the game, and b) we want to play only those classes.  This allows no room for prestige classes, or for elaborate multiclass combinations (which I like, BTW).  It also assumes that we want to continue advancing in the same class, and it assumes that adding a level of a class when you're at 13th level is of the same value as it would be at 3rd. (Heck, if you're using stackable features and an exponential XP curve like 2e, why bother to advance past fourth or fifth level in a given combat class- just take the first few levels in any).  It don't work.Exactly the point I made; the balance came from the advancement cost, rather than from the construction of the class itself. (Unlike 3e)Well, I did. (and I never played AD&D 1, I didn't start playing until 1997)  I wanted to give players OPTIONS, which were practically an unknown quantity in the core D&D rules (Which was why so many of my players at the time wanted to play point-based systems like Vampire or d6 Star Wars instead- they could build the character they wanted.)  Player's Option fixed this, but it was tied to so much outdated legacy junk (like the XP charts, THAC0, the messy multiclassing and dual classing systems) and had such an imbalance between classes (Priests with character points could potentially become one-man parties if the player knew what he was doing) that it became broken and unworkable.  d20 D&D fixed this- and the unified advancement chart was part of this improvement, and part of what made D&D a game worth playing again.</blockquote>

Verification