Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5799530" data-attributes="member: 19675">No- any concept has to be examined within its proper context.&nbsp; An RPG class is irreducibly complex only within the context of the context of that RPG.&nbsp; Compared to a classless system from another game, you can break any class into its component parts.&nbsp; But within its native system, the class cannot be broken down any further than its initial bundle.So what?Nope.&nbsp; Since I first picked up the game in 1977, 80%+ of my D&amp;D PCs have been multiclassed.So I'm pretty clear on what you get- or don't get- when you multiclass a PC.&nbsp; Some classes- mostly the martial ones- you get quite a bit: a HP boost, a BAB bump, a host of weapon proficiencies and one or more armor &amp; shield proficiencies, all of which are evergreen in their utility, even though they may be overshadowed by supernatural abilities.In contrast, the casters don't offer quite as much with a dip: a useful spell or two (which may not be useful as the party levels), possible special abilities like Turning (which only improve with class levels) and so forth.&nbsp; You will be able to use certain magic items, though, the one benefit that is truly an unending font.&nbsp; But its value depends upon what gets handed out in the campaign, since a dipper won't be a crafter caster.Assuming multiclassing exists, dipping will be an unavoidable consequence unless the actual multiclassing system is fairly restrictive.I said that I thought Hybridizing was a close second to 3.5E's take on things, but even with that respect, it fails to model many of the PC concepts I come up with.&nbsp; It won't even handle 1Ed stuff, where I favored things like Ftr/MU/Th characters.&nbsp; So while I think it's superior in many ways, Hybrid multiclassing fails as a way to support my preferences.&nbsp; It's simply too constrained.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 5799530, member: 19675"] No- any concept has to be examined within its proper context. An RPG class is irreducibly complex only within the context of the context of that RPG. Compared to a classless system from another game, you can break any class into its component parts. But within its native system, the class cannot be broken down any further than its initial bundle. So what? Nope. Since I first picked up the game in 1977, 80%+ of my D&D PCs have been multiclassed. So I'm pretty clear on what you get- or don't get- when you multiclass a PC. Some classes- mostly the martial ones- you get quite a bit: a HP boost, a BAB bump, a host of weapon proficiencies and one or more armor & shield proficiencies, all of which are evergreen in their utility, even though they may be overshadowed by supernatural abilities. In contrast, the casters don't offer quite as much with a dip: a useful spell or two (which may not be useful as the party levels), possible special abilities like Turning (which only improve with class levels) and so forth. You will be able to use certain magic items, though, the one benefit that is truly an unending font. But its value depends upon what gets handed out in the campaign, since a dipper won't be a crafter caster. Assuming multiclassing exists, dipping will be an unavoidable consequence unless the actual multiclassing system is fairly restrictive. I said that I thought Hybridizing was a close second to 3.5E's take on things, but even with that respect, it fails to model many of the PC concepts I come up with. It won't even handle 1Ed stuff, where I favored things like Ftr/MU/Th characters. So while I think it's superior in many ways, Hybrid multiclassing fails as a way to support my preferences. It's simply too constrained. [/QUOTE]

Verification