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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GSHamster" data-source="post: 5659489" data-attributes="member: 20187">I'm going to say no to multi-classing for the following reasons:1. Increased complexity. Just having multi-classing adds pages of rules for a relatively uncommon case.2. Increased permutations of possible character builds. Every class can multi-class with every other class from any sourcebook. This makes it exceeding likely that some combination somewhere will be broken.3. Classes can be more unique. For a class to multi-class successfully, it needs to share characteristics with other classes. Having classes be self-contained entities allows more experimentation with resource models and other ideas.4. Hybrids are rarely successfully balanced when 50% class A + 50% class B.  A hybrid character needs to be closer to 75% class A + 75% class B to match 100% class A.  But that adds up to 150%, and is very hard to do in a level-based game where the total number of levels is always the same.You can see this in things like 3E's total caster level, etc.5. This may be an unpopular reason, but it's a good avenue for the game companies to make money. We like buying new classes, and having classes be entirely self-contained will make it a lot easier to make hybrid classes without treading on the multi-class toes.I think the game is healthier when the game companies are making a profit instead of losing money.As well, adding new classes does not necessarily add new complexity to the rest of the system the way a lot of new rules do. Only the player of the class really needs to worry about it.---I think that the game would be better off if multi-classing was disallowed. If really necessary, maybe a "Rebirth" ritual or similar could be included to provide a path for a player to switch classes to something new that is more in-line with her vision.</blockquote>

Verification