NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 7099386" data-attributes="member: 6677017">Thanks for the responses so far. Some thoughts.Sure, but not at this point. I'm working on proof of concept. If I got it to work with everything else and had to disallow warlocks, that'd probably still count as a success.Good points. It will take some effort, but I think it is doable. I'm not overly concerned with limited use bursts. The game has paladin smites by default.So I take that as a clear "this is overpowered" statement. Could you provide examples of when you want to play a concept that a standard class is designed to model, but you'd choose to play one of these instead because it models the concept close enough and is clearly more powerful?I don't see that as too terribly different than what I was saying, but I do need to be careful to make it as simple and effective as possible. I'm not too concerned about that part though, since I've looked through and eyeballed the main elements and most seemed fairly obvious (barbarian was probably the hardest).I agree with you somewhat for standard balance purposes, but for these purposes I actually want some options to be better than others. Or rather, I don't want people playing two d10 classes or sorcerer/wizards. While it would be nice if the system were refined enough to well support any combination, it is intended primarily to allow old school combinations like elven fighter/magic-user, dwarf fighter/cleric and fighter/thief, gnome illusionist/thief, and a few others. I will probably say that this form of multiclassing represents racial traditions and is restricted similar to how battlerager and bladesinger are. So there might only be six or eight known combinations that exist in my world, and each them would involve no more than one warrior (fighter, paladin, ranger, barbarian), priest (cleric, druid), "rogue" (rogue, bard), or mage (wizard, sorcerer). So if those combinations are the more powerful ones, as long as they aren't overpowered compared to a single class character, I have a working system.Yes, that was the 3e plan. A gestalt game was it's own weird thing. But the system was inspired by AD&D multiclassing which was intended to be used right alongside standard single classed characters, and that is what I'm attempting to express with this system. (As an aside, the 3e designers said they thought that a 3e gestalt character would be balanced against a standard character by giving it a +1 Level adjustment. Their main argument was that action economy limits what you can do, but I still think that was too low of a LA to balance it.)</blockquote>

Verification