Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5993595" data-attributes="member: 54877">One of my acid tests for multiclassing that isn't flawed:&nbsp; It doesn't matter what order you do the classes in, a Fighter/Rogue 3/3 is the same mechanical basis whether the character went F,F,F,R,R,R or opposite or R,F,R,F,R,F or any other combination.&nbsp;It's not the same character in the story, because the order says something about the character in play getting those levels.&nbsp; And of course different characters will have exercised options differently (e.g. skill picks, feat picks, etc.).&nbsp; Yet the options were the same even if exercised differently.&nbsp;There are some things to be said for violating this rule on the edges, if warranted, but it shouldn't be done casually.&nbsp; Because to violate it creates all kinds of annoying accounting issues, that compound as characters reach higher levels.&nbsp; Want to know if a 10th level Fighter/Rogue 3E character has correct skill ranks?&nbsp; You almost need to know what order the levels were taken.&nbsp; (PF cleans this up somewhat by the simple expedient of replacing the x4 skill ranks bit at 1st level.)&nbsp; As a DM with players that routinely miss things and thus underpower themselves, I'm well familiar with that annoyance.&nbsp;More widely experienced, avoiding such stacking issues means that making high level characters from scratch is generally easier.&nbsp; You can just say that you have a Fighter/Wizard 4/3 and start looking up what that means in any order you please.&nbsp; &nbsp;The &quot;hidden cost&quot; of the 3E approach is that in simplifying the process of the XP chart and its relation to character levels, it complicates the stacking of the classes.&nbsp; That doesn't make something like the 3E approach automatically a bad idea, but it is an issue that I think a 3E-like approach must address carefully in order to really shine.&nbsp; (1E/2E and 4E approaches have different issues to deal with.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5993595, member: 54877"] One of my acid tests for multiclassing that isn't flawed: It doesn't matter what order you do the classes in, a Fighter/Rogue 3/3 is the same mechanical basis whether the character went F,F,F,R,R,R or opposite or R,F,R,F,R,F or any other combination. It's not the same character in the story, because the order says something about the character in play getting those levels. And of course different characters will have exercised options differently (e.g. skill picks, feat picks, etc.). Yet the options were the same even if exercised differently. There are some things to be said for violating this rule on the edges, if warranted, but it shouldn't be done casually. Because to violate it creates all kinds of annoying accounting issues, that compound as characters reach higher levels. Want to know if a 10th level Fighter/Rogue 3E character has correct skill ranks? You almost need to know what order the levels were taken. (PF cleans this up somewhat by the simple expedient of replacing the x4 skill ranks bit at 1st level.) As a DM with players that routinely miss things and thus underpower themselves, I'm well familiar with that annoyance. More widely experienced, avoiding such stacking issues means that making high level characters from scratch is generally easier. You can just say that you have a Fighter/Wizard 4/3 and start looking up what that means in any order you please. The "hidden cost" of the 3E approach is that in simplifying the process of the XP chart and its relation to character levels, it complicates the stacking of the classes. That doesn't make something like the 3E approach automatically a bad idea, but it is an issue that I think a 3E-like approach must address carefully in order to really shine. (1E/2E and 4E approaches have different issues to deal with.) [/QUOTE]

Verification