Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6361410" data-attributes="member: 6677017">It was on the front page of EnWorld.I sure hope it isn't the UA version. I'm not sure why they even did that in 3e. What it needs to do is what AD&amp;D did, provide an alternate form of multiclassing based on simultaneous advancement in multiple classes. 3e gestalting basically just gave up trying to balance it and said &quot;Hey, for those of you who liked AD&amp;D multiclassing try this! Uhm...but you have to redo everything to make it balanced, and it won't make any sense, but hey, it's kinda almost, sort of, maybe what you want, right?&quot;Basically (with apologies to those who have said they would like 3e gestalting) making rules for 3e gestalting is essentially trying to meet a demand that is there for real AD&amp;D-themed multiclassing, by supplying us with 3e gestalt-classing for which there is not a demand. Which is of course entirely missing the point.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sword of Spirit, post: 6361410, member: 6677017"] It was on the front page of EnWorld. I sure hope it isn't the UA version. I'm not sure why they even did that in 3e. What it needs to do is what AD&D did, provide an alternate form of multiclassing based on simultaneous advancement in multiple classes. 3e gestalting basically just gave up trying to balance it and said "Hey, for those of you who liked AD&D multiclassing try this! Uhm...but you have to redo everything to make it balanced, and it won't make any sense, but hey, it's kinda almost, sort of, maybe what you want, right?" Basically (with apologies to those who have said they would like 3e gestalting) making rules for 3e gestalting is essentially trying to meet a demand that [I]is[/I] there for real AD&D-themed multiclassing, by supplying us with 3e gestalt-classing for which there [I]is not[/I] a demand. Which is of course entirely missing the point. [/QUOTE]

Verification