Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="katahn" data-source="post: 4196046" data-attributes="member: 65004">Consider the raw number of abilities a character will have from levels 1-10 of each category.&nbsp; Being &quot;limited&quot; to one of each category through those levels as a multiclass while still being fully effective in your base class seems reasonable to me.&nbsp; It achieves the &quot;fighter who knows some magic&quot; role.But my concept is someone equally good in melee combat and spellcasting... a true fighter/wizard.Then at level 11 you can go for a true fighter/wizard multiclass instead of a paragon path.&nbsp; You lose the focused power of the paragon path, but gain tremendous versatility instead.&nbsp; This strikes me again as a reasonable tradeoff.But what about the triple-class combinations?&nbsp; Or quadruple-class combinations?If 4e is as easily tweaked into becoming a true classless system, then I imagine tweaking to allow additional forms of multiclassing could certainly be done more easily.&nbsp; Instead of choosing a class, one can select whatever abilities desired by level.&nbsp; From a core or base rules perspective and preserving the idea of combat roles, I can understand the desire to not dilute the meaning of the classes too much.Multiclassing in 3e or Saga is better!Respectfully I disagree with 3e multiclassing being better.&nbsp; It only worked really well for melee/melee type combinations, marginally well for melee/divine caster combinations, and abysmally for anything involving arcane spellcasters.&nbsp; Loss of caster levels, sharply restricted spell lists, lower level spells that would be easier for higher level monsters to make saves against, armored spell failure for arcane casters, etc.&nbsp; There's a reason why 3e saw such an explosion of &quot;prestige&quot; classes all designed around making the melee/arcane multiclass trope work.As for Saga, I'm not familiar with it.&nbsp; Based on comments here it seems to me that the class design of Saga allows its version of multiclassing to work where it wouldn't in 4e.&nbsp; Saga doesn't appear to have classes as strictly defined by their roles in combat that 4e does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="katahn, post: 4196046, member: 65004"] Consider the raw number of abilities a character will have from levels 1-10 of each category. Being "limited" to one of each category through those levels as a multiclass while still being fully effective in your base class seems reasonable to me. It achieves the "fighter who knows some magic" role. [B]But my concept is someone equally good in melee combat and spellcasting... a true fighter/wizard.[/B] Then at level 11 you can go for a true fighter/wizard multiclass instead of a paragon path. You lose the focused power of the paragon path, but gain tremendous versatility instead. This strikes me again as a reasonable tradeoff. [B]But what about the triple-class combinations? Or quadruple-class combinations?[/B] If 4e is as easily tweaked into becoming a true classless system, then I imagine tweaking to allow additional forms of multiclassing could certainly be done more easily. Instead of choosing a class, one can select whatever abilities desired by level. From a core or base rules perspective and preserving the idea of combat roles, I can understand the desire to not dilute the meaning of the classes too much. [B]Multiclassing in 3e or Saga is better![/B] Respectfully I disagree with 3e multiclassing being better. It only worked really well for melee/melee type combinations, marginally well for melee/divine caster combinations, and abysmally for anything involving arcane spellcasters. Loss of caster levels, sharply restricted spell lists, lower level spells that would be easier for higher level monsters to make saves against, armored spell failure for arcane casters, etc. There's a reason why 3e saw such an explosion of "prestige" classes all designed around making the melee/arcane multiclass trope work. As for Saga, I'm not familiar with it. Based on comments here it seems to me that the class design of Saga allows its version of multiclassing to work where it wouldn't in 4e. Saga doesn't appear to have classes as strictly defined by their roles in combat that 4e does. [/QUOTE]

Verification