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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 4197703" data-attributes="member: 20564">3.x multiclassing had a lot to recommend it.  It also had a lot it handled poorly without a PrC "patch", such as primary spellcasters multiclassing with just about anything.4e multiclassing is an entirely different beast.  It isn't descended from 3.x multiclassing; you can't compare it directly.I'll say that I enjoyed a lot of the strengths of the 3.x multiclassing and were annoyed by it's weaknesses but it was generally positive.I really don't have a feel for this until I try it.  Wanting to do a fighter/magic-user/thief seems right out, but I'm not wedded to "if it's not backwards compatible, it's garbage".A previous poster mentions it feels bolted on, and I think that's spot on.  From early design blogs we know they were still touching it late in the process.  So whatever they came up with couldn't cause any paradigm shifts.  This fits into the existing structure as opposed to helping define the structure.I think a problem I have is assuming that there are enough classes to encompass a character.  If I want to play a fighter who dabbles in magic, I can do it with this.  If I want to play a wizard with a sword, I can also do it.  But if I want to play something right in the middle, I need to wait for a new core class, maybe the swordmage.  To put it another way, classes fill a lot of niches.  This widens the niches, reducing the gap between them by allowing dabbling from other classes.  But there are still gaps that can't be reached.Now, how multiclassing instead of a paragon class goes towards filling it we'll still have to see.That all said, there are lots of things I like about it and I'm more than willing to play it.  It's a different beast.Cheers,=Blue(23)</blockquote>

Verification