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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oni" data-source="post: 825188" data-attributes="member: 380">My personal view is that the changes are already fairly significant for a revision, and they're being a bit wishy washy, can't quite decide which it is and I think thats something that will have an ill effect.  But as for the revising the multiclassing rules, revision doesn't necessarily mean extreme changes.One very simple solution would be to simply allow character level to act as caster level does now (i.e. duration of spells, ability to punch through SR et c. goes up, but new spells are not gained).  3e was playtested quite hardily in it's inception and so I think it is reasonable to say while multiclassing may leave something to be desired at times, that the playtesters didn't find it so weak as to be completely unusable, so it really should only need a minor tweak.   As for the quality of the concept of this solution I'm afraid I'll simply have to disagree.  You like it, I don't, there isn't much to argue there.  However I think it unreasonable to say that a PrC cannot be assessed without playtesting.  Yes playtesting is useful and can provide a great amount of information, but it isn't the end all be all.  Let us consider this logically for a moment.  If we set a wizard/cleric down next to a Mystic Theurge, one is clearly more powerful than the other.  This tells us that at least one of these two options is unbalanced.  If we look at it from a 3e standpoint, according to the playtesting results of 3e the MT is broken as the multiclassing rules were found fine.  If we look at it from the 3.5 perspective it's a little more muddy, but according to Andy Collins and many other people, myself included, then the multiclass rules are found wanting and so the wizard/cleric is out of balance.  So have two clear things though, the MT is more powerful, and the wizard/cleric is weaker because of the multiclassing system.    Next let's take a 17th level wizard, and a 20th level wizard and put them next to each other and assume equal equipment as equipment makes up a large portion of the level differences between classes.  I don't think you'll find the difference in powerlevel to be all that drastic.  Now take that 17th level wizard and give him 13 free cleric levels, huge difference.  Is a three level gap worth 13 levels in another class?  Sure this is a simple analysis, but there are things you can see without playtesting.  Personally this class sets off alarm bells and I would not be inclined to allow it without seeing it in action first.  Let me put it in simpler terms, if a PrC gave full BAB, all good saves and a feat every other level, would you have to wait until it was playtested to see if it was balanced?   Yes I could just make those changes, but I don't think I should have too, when it could have been done better.  They're the professionals, the should be making the rules as close to perfect as they possible can right out of the box.  I shouldn't want to immediately start making little changes.    First off, you misunderstand me, note I didn't say anything about straight class's deviating to pick up the PrC's what I said is that Multiclass wizard/rogues and the like are going to be passed over in favor of the Arcane Trickster and the like.  Concept and roleplaying are all well in good, but my personal view is that game designers have a responsibility to create a good of a game as they can before they release it to the public, at least if they want my money.  It if flawed game design that one option should be drastically more appealling than another without good reason.  Dnd is a game about balance and right now it's looking mighty out of whack.  Ultimately you come back to what I've said before, the multiclass rules need a fix, so that we don't have to have a bandaid like the MT to do an interesting concept that should be supported by the base rules.    Well I don't really have anything to add, your experiences is your experience, I just include the last portion of your statements for the sake of completeness.</blockquote>

Verification