Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nine Hands" data-source="post: 6111649" data-attributes="member: 4919">The issue with that is it does not tie into multiclassing in a logical manner.&nbsp; You take a 0 level class when you multiclass?&nbsp; So you can be a Fighter 0/Wizard 0?&nbsp; Seems silly.&nbsp; Cutting down the amount of abilities for low level characters IS better for the game overall, if you want freeform multiclassing, which was one of the best things about 3E (except the power oddities it introduced).&nbsp; I like the ability of a character to grow into a class instead of just being awesome right away.&nbsp; Guy gets religious, he starts to pick up cleric levels.&nbsp; Wizard tired of being beat up, takes a level of Fighter.Also, starting at a higher level doesn't reduce the game, you still have all the abilities and with the way that WotC is looking to advance characters, the loss is what...two game sessions?&nbsp; Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nine Hands, post: 6111649, member: 4919"] The issue with that is it does not tie into multiclassing in a logical manner. You take a 0 level class when you multiclass? So you can be a Fighter 0/Wizard 0? Seems silly. Cutting down the amount of abilities for low level characters IS better for the game overall, if you want freeform multiclassing, which was one of the best things about 3E (except the power oddities it introduced). I like the ability of a character to grow into a class instead of just being awesome right away. Guy gets religious, he starts to pick up cleric levels. Wizard tired of being beat up, takes a level of Fighter. Also, starting at a higher level doesn't reduce the game, you still have all the abilities and with the way that WotC is looking to advance characters, the loss is what...two game sessions? Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification