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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5772880" data-attributes="member: 54877">Well, if you want fairly robust and expansive multiclassing, how much narrowing of the classes would you find acceptable to make it work, if necessary, and at what cost?  Or put another way, the more broad and capable you make any single class, the more likely it becomes something people want to play as a single class. But this also complicates multiclassing, because of stacking (either too much, or because restrictions to reign in the stacking become too draconian at times -- i.e. 3E caster levels at certain points in the design). Make the single classes fairly narrow, and you instantly remove a good chunk of the multiclassing issues, yet make the single class option somewhat 1-dimensional as a character. (Picture a "wizard" who only casts arcane spells and gets no weapons or boosts to attacks or saving throws and so forth, or a "fighter" who only knows weapons and armor--for a very extreme example of what this might be.) So I see the single-class/multi-class dilemma as the proper path to thread between two extremes.  I'm fairly convinced the extremes should be avoided (though not certain), but how much to veer either way, I change my mind almost daily at times. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification