Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 5772887" data-attributes="member: 5889">I like many things about 4e, but multiclassing was not one of them.I feel for the developers on this one. 3e's multiclassing is wonderful for the players. It gives a monstrous amount of freedom and customization...and all with a minimal amount of rules. But everything that makes it so free and wonderful makes it a NIGHTMARE for balance.A great number of broken builds in 3e (both over and under powered) can be traced back to multiclassing.To answer the OPs question, if nothing else, good multiclassing is necessary because it allows the game to feel complete out of the box. One of my biggest issues with 4e was the game felt very reigned in when I first started playing. There were a number of archetypes that I did not feel I could adequately play in core 4e. 3e's edition multiclassing for all its faults never had this problem because I could mix and match to get exactly what I wanted.Now I will say that my issue with 4e's style changed with time. Because 4e tried to put each archetype into its own class box, as time when on more classes and builds were produced, and slowly my options expanded to cover all of my needs. However, that took more time and more books....and many people don't want to wait around.So for 5e, I either need a robust multiclassing system, or a whole lot of archetype options given to me right at the beginning.</blockquote>