Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 3219989" data-attributes="member: 1465">Whether I agree or not, these are good points to bring up!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" />This is very group-dependent for me. In our tabletop games, no one has ever multiclassed in more than 2 base classes and 1 prestige class. That sounds still very decent to me.OTOH in oneline games, there's lots of players who focus more on character build than the actual adventures. It is sometimes irritating to see combat-types with 5-6 classes.Maybe that's just me, but I don't buy the idea that "character concept" requires heavy multiclassing. I think that every concept can be covered by 1-2 classes at most if you have a large number enough of feats & spells, or eventually if you ask your DM for a VARIANT of the class in question. For some reason I cannot explain, people prefer to play with multiclassing (and often complain that they STILL can't get the perfect thing they wanted) rather than going straight for the target by creating a variant of the class with the DM.Anyway, I agree with you that the XP penalty should have been designed better. It could have been SMALLER but EASIER (like e.g. 5% penalty for every class after the first, doesn't matter what level). Agree completely. Metamagic is great for spontaneous casters, period.There is no reason why metamagic MUST be good for every caster: spontaneous casters are all about flexibility, preparation-based casters are all about knowledge.Of course, having an OPTION is good, but 3ed took IMHO a bad path when they decided to make metamagic (very nearly almost) just as good for preparation-based casters. And at the same time they DIDN'T do the same service to spontaneous casters with options to improve their spell knowledge (Extra Spell feat can not be seriously compared in usefulness).It's not a matter of balance really, it's a matter of taking away someone's unique ROLE, and also not giving much in return. No wonder if there are nowadays probably more Warlocks than Sorcerers.Agree, but the best solution here is the DM. Agree partly. Fortunately I largely play 3.0 (so at least PA is much better) and I also always enforce my own control of magic item's availability for sale. I still think that even in 3.0 TWF is more costly than it's worth, but otherwise 2Handed and Sword&Board warriors are quite on par.Well it's hard to say. Sometimes I want adventures where there is 1 encounter per WEEK, and sometimes I want a single scenario with lots of battles in a single day.However I definitely enjoy how the game has multiple levels of strategy and resource management, hence I dislike almost every variant rule or option that eliminates one of those levels.I don't know... if all buffs are short, people are still going to cast them shortly before combat, and it may actually become more boring than having a few of them cast in the morning and permanently added to your character sheet.Clearly, long term buffs should be of less power than the short term ones.I never had a problem with this (tho the 3.0 PA is way simpler than the 3.5 version). Usually we just choose a number without thinking too much about the exact probabilities...I like both ways. In a game with no munchkins I prefer rolling and accepting the results (just for fun), but otherwise point buy is safer from party inbalance.Just kindly ask the players not to take multiple abilities of this kind.For PC I think it works quite well. My possible only gripe is that you inevitably end up thinking in terms "I have to out and kill some orcs, so that I can finish crafting this item"  :\</blockquote>

Verification