Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 5799546" data-attributes="member: 5142">That's what I thought, and that's what makes it a meaningless term, as the point in which a class is &quot;irreducibly complex&quot; &quot;within the context of the context of that RPG&quot; is always debatable and usually ends up meaning &quot;whatever the designers printed in the book.&quot; It rewards class-dipping, which devalues the meaningfulness of class selection and classes as archetypes. That's fantastic, but 3e has only been around since 2000, and that's the only system I'm concerned with right now. Out of curiosity, what problems do you have, if any, with the 3.5 system of classes and multiclassing? What if you made multiclassing fairly restrictive, but made the classes broad and flexible enough to create a wide array of character concepts? Especially consider how D&amp;D Next is incorporating the use of &quot;themes&quot; that provide a lot of the flavor concepts that often tied in with classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 5799546, member: 5142"] That's what I thought, and that's what makes it a meaningless term, as the point in which a class is "irreducibly complex" "within the context of the context of that RPG" is always debatable and usually ends up meaning "whatever the designers printed in the book." It rewards class-dipping, which devalues the meaningfulness of class selection and classes as archetypes. That's fantastic, but 3e has only been around since 2000, and that's the only system I'm concerned with right now. Out of curiosity, what problems do you have, if any, with the 3.5 system of classes and multiclassing? What if you made multiclassing [i]fairly[/i] restrictive, but made the classes broad and flexible enough to create a wide array of character concepts? Especially consider how D&D Next is incorporating the use of "themes" that provide a lot of the flavor concepts that often tied in with classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification