Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pickaxe" data-source="post: 3053094" data-attributes="member: 10812">I disagree. My take is that favored classes and XP penalties exist to channel multi-classing in a way that leads to something resembling the restrictions of 1e and 2e. Multiclassed dwarves will be fighter/X, elves wizard/X. Presumably humans got a reversal of fortune compared with earlier editions (where they were essentially unable to multiclass, at least in 1e), and that dove-tailed nicely with making half-elves like humans, giving them the multiclassing flexibility that characterized them in 1e. The XP penalties were also meant to make many multiclassed characters (especially triple-classed) look like 1e, i.e. with balanced levels. The &quot;guidelines for newbs&quot; is the flavor text at the beginning of each race/class description.Of course, one could argue whether or not the designers were successful in achieving the results that (IMO) were intended by these rules. Probably not, since spellcaster/X multiclass are almost universally considered bad, and the fighter/cleric, fighter/wizard, etc. were staple multiclassed characters in older editions. Furthermore, most multiclassing seems to take advantage of &quot;dips&quot; into characters with advantageous low-level abilities that scale well, which doesn't really resemble the typical multiclassed characters of old.Whether you think this is a good thing or not is a matter of taste. I'm not a big fan of multiclassing; it smacks too much of games like Champions where your objective was to collect powers, rather than pursue some sort of calling as a character, so I generally would rather keep the XP penalties and favored classes. Although I didn't really like the 3e multiclassing model at first, I've actually grown accustomed to it, if not to actually like it. It's pretty well balanced, and the restrictions are sufficient to maintain the value of single-classed characters. But that's just me.--Axe</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pickaxe, post: 3053094, member: 10812"] I disagree. My take is that favored classes and XP penalties exist to channel multi-classing in a way that leads to something resembling the restrictions of 1e and 2e. Multiclassed dwarves will be fighter/X, elves wizard/X. Presumably humans got a reversal of fortune compared with earlier editions (where they were essentially unable to multiclass, at least in 1e), and that dove-tailed nicely with making half-elves like humans, giving them the multiclassing flexibility that characterized them in 1e. The XP penalties were also meant to make many multiclassed characters (especially triple-classed) look like 1e, i.e. with balanced levels. The "guidelines for newbs" is the flavor text at the beginning of each race/class description. Of course, one could argue whether or not the designers were successful in achieving the results that (IMO) were intended by these rules. Probably not, since spellcaster/X multiclass are almost universally considered bad, and the fighter/cleric, fighter/wizard, etc. were staple multiclassed characters in older editions. Furthermore, most multiclassing seems to take advantage of "dips" into characters with advantageous low-level abilities that scale well, which doesn't really resemble the typical multiclassed characters of old. Whether you think this is a good thing or not is a matter of taste. I'm not a big fan of multiclassing; it smacks too much of games like Champions where your objective was to collect powers, rather than pursue some sort of calling as a character, so I generally would rather keep the XP penalties and favored classes. Although I didn't really like the 3e multiclassing model at first, I've actually grown accustomed to it, if not to actually like it. It's pretty well balanced, and the restrictions are sufficient to maintain the value of single-classed characters. But that's just me. --Axe [/QUOTE]

Verification