Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5817479" data-attributes="member: 54877">There's more to it, but the core of it would be something like this: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Class xp chart requires around double XP per level. Let's use the 1E fighter chart, but start it at 1000 for convenience--2nd level at 1,000 XP, 3rd at 2,000, 4th at 4,000, 5th at 8,000, etc. We will probably gradually drop the factor per level from x2 to something like 1.3 over the higher levels to keep the totals from getting completely ridiculous (and to subtly encourage pushing that main class), but whatever it is, it isn't the 3E 1,000, 3,000, 6,000, 10,000, 15,000, etc. (And why we don't use 100 as the starting place and scale XP awards to match, I don't know, except old traditions of getting 13 XP per some piddlying moster. But I digress. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />) Point being that at some moderate level achievement, tacking on another 1st level class for a measly 1K XP starts to be tempting.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">However, this chart applies to every class and any monkeying with the per level factor is done intentionally for level pacing, not a balancing mechanism (i.e. not the 1E hodge-podge of numbers, varying scales, etc.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There are no racial or otherwise multiclassing restrictions. You can be bebopping along taking your fighter levels or wizard levels or a mix of both. Then you suddenly decide to take a level in thief. If the DM and/or the group doesn't object, you pay your 1k XP and add 1st level thief to your abilities. This isn't stacking on top like 3E. So the fact that you only get 1st level thief stuff for your measly 1k XP is fine. And it really isn't setting you back much from your next level in fighter or wizard or whatever your main thing is.</li> </ol>The obvious question, of course, is wouldn't everyone multiclass in this sytem? In some campaigns, they would. If you've got one of those campaigns where you all sneak around a lot, then having some trailing abilities as rogue or ranger or thief are cheap for what you get. Likewise, if you've got only 3 or 4 players, you want each character to have some "backup" ability. OTOH, a large group, or one heavily oriented towards maximizing group specialization and covering each other with teamwork, might prefer to multiclass very little or even not at all. And that's all good. The main purpose of such a system is to let each group adapt to the specialization or generalization that they want, instead of the game imposing one. This has been the problem with all versions of multiclassing thus far in D&D, that however well they work or don't work for given playstyles, they strongly bias the game towards a set ratio of specialization/generalization. This is why, among other things, that size of the party has matter so much. A side effect of such a system (feature for some, bug for others) is that you can't get that 20th level wizard stuff until you get 20 levels in wizard. However, taking levels in other things do not stop you from eventually getting 20 levels in wizard--theoretically. They just make it take longer, which might mean that you don't crack that total before the end of the campaign. Whatever else this means, it means that the character that specializes more than the other characters in the party, gets access to things that the rest don't have (at least not right now). Assuming of course, a well-designed system where you cannot, for example, get all the "fighter stuff" by taking a bunch of rogue/ranger/paladin/barbarian levels. Some of the 4E design would be useful here.</blockquote>

Verification