Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AlioTheFool" data-source="post: 5801181" data-attributes="member: 82767">This is my biggest issue with the anti-multiclassing argument. Not everyone likes playing&nbsp; archetypes. Some people want to create their own stories, rather than&nbsp; trying to replicate Drizz't, Raistlin, Gandalf, or whoever.Personally,&nbsp; I never play archetypes. I'm no fan of &quot;typical&quot; wizards. My bards&nbsp; don't sing, they're more jester-like. My fighters are deep thinkers, my&nbsp; rogues don't steal.There is room in the game for both archetypes&nbsp; and for those who reject them. I wrote a blog post last week about&nbsp; this. Basically, you make classes so that specific features are only&nbsp; available if you continue to grow in that specific class. If you&nbsp; multiclass, you can acquire varied features, but not &quot;advanced&quot; ones. I&nbsp; believe this is the direction WotC is going to take. I wasn't at DDXP,&nbsp; so I can't say for sure, but this is my gut feeling.Agreed.I agree with the majority&nbsp; of this post. I'm pretty anti-4E style. I despised Hybrids. I agree&nbsp; that multiclassing shouldn't make you &quot;better&quot; than everyone else, but&nbsp; in order to do that, 4E makes you feel like you're &quot;worse&quot; than everyone&nbsp; else, which isn't good either.I am confident the team will make&nbsp; multiclassing in D&amp;DNext balanced enough that whether you&nbsp; multiclass or not, you feel like your character is worth playing in the&nbsp; group.I wouldn't mind seeing a system that allowed themes to be layered&nbsp; upon your character to round it out. It could be done very well, and I&nbsp; touched on that myself, though very briefly. Themes were one of my&nbsp; favorite additions to 4E, as they allowed a better opportunity to&nbsp; &quot;multiclass&quot; (though that wasn't their intended purpose) than feat-based&nbsp; or hybrid multiclassing. Their one downfall was &quot;you can take one&quot;&nbsp; which was a continuation of the disappointment of hybrids and feat-based&nbsp; style.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AlioTheFool, post: 5801181, member: 82767"] This is my biggest issue with the anti-multiclassing argument. Not everyone [I]likes [/I]playing archetypes. Some people want to create their own stories, rather than trying to replicate Drizz't, Raistlin, Gandalf, or whoever. Personally, I never play archetypes. I'm no fan of "typical" wizards. My bards don't sing, they're more jester-like. My fighters are deep thinkers, my rogues don't steal. There is room in the game for both archetypes and for those who reject them. I wrote a blog post last week about this. Basically, you make classes so that specific features are only available if you continue to grow in that specific class. If you multiclass, you can acquire varied features, but not "advanced" ones. I believe this is the direction WotC is going to take. I wasn't at DDXP, so I can't say for sure, but this is my gut feeling. Agreed. I agree with the majority of this post. I'm pretty anti-4E style. I despised Hybrids. I agree that multiclassing shouldn't make you "better" than everyone else, but in order to do that, 4E makes you feel like you're "worse" than everyone else, which isn't good either. I am confident the team will make multiclassing in D&DNext balanced enough that whether you multiclass or not, you feel like your character is worth playing in the group. I wouldn't mind seeing a system that allowed themes to be layered upon your character to round it out. It could be done very well, and I touched on that myself, though very briefly. Themes were one of my favorite additions to 4E, as they allowed a better opportunity to "multiclass" (though that wasn't their intended purpose) than feat-based or hybrid multiclassing. Their one downfall was "you can take one" which was a continuation of the disappointment of hybrids and feat-based style. [/QUOTE]

Verification