Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rowport" data-source="post: 4197913" data-attributes="member: 9729">Ari-From my perspective, 3.5 was a poor multiclassing system, since it was clear that a 50/50 class split was *never* as powerful as a 100 core class (at least with any casting classes in the mix).  You are very right that kludges like prestige classes and/or feats improved the situation but did not fully fix it.  Most notably, Practiced Spellcaster is nearly a must-have feat to make it work.I understand your point to be that 4e is as good or "arguably better" but I am still disappointed as I thought it would be *fixed* where clearly it is not.  If anything, reverting back to "dabbling" instead of multiclassing (i.e. adding a dash of magic to your fighter instead of creating a fighter-mage) with a two-class maximum is a big step in the wrong direction.  As a few posters here have said, as has Buzz of my own home group, I might be happier playing HERO or GURPS again and just leaving D&D.  That might be right.  I guess I am bummed that I thought a clear design flaw should be fixed, not just marginalized as it is in this solution.And, I am very puzzled why other options were rejected on multiclass solutions.  The power curve in Bo9S maneuvers adjusted to multiclassing without the need for feat kludges.  So do the skill-based Force powers in SWSE.  I dunno.  I just seems like this is the least-elegant option, not really much different than a 4e version of Practiced Spellcaster.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification