Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Grabuto138" data-source="post: 5994026" data-attributes="member: 61053">The idea of eliminating player-side multiclassing is initially somewhat shocking. But I think I agree. Rather than creating a comprehensive ruleset for multiclassing that will almost certainly have holes, it would be easy enough to release hard-coded multiclass classes. So, there would be a set of discrete, specific, rules of progression for a Fighter-MU, a Thief-Cleric etc. This assumes a DDI-type model&nbsp; so the classes could be created and distributed with nominal hassle.As a side note, I think many of the comments in this post regarding 3e multiclassing are not recognizing the reality of the Next rules as presented. I liked 3e multiclassing. I agree that it was essentially a point-buy system, but it made character creation interesting and gave the players something to talk about, read about and ponder on outside of actual playtime. Basically, it extended the hobby. In 1e/2e there wasn't much to do for a player who wasn't playing. In 3e/4e you can create a theoretical character, argue on discussion boards, or spend your lunch hour with your nerd colleague trying to create a good 3e archer Bard. But Next feels to me, and this is just my opinion, as very much a 2e with a small, unified ruleset rather random subrules patched in at whim. So 3e multiclassing is pretty much off the table. The system is too different. In a sense, Next is what 3e should have been, a significant change in rules with a nominal change in tone. I can imagine an alternate reality where Next was 3e and Pathfinder was its own thing. The world would be a better place.And I play, and love, 4e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grabuto138, post: 5994026, member: 61053"] The idea of eliminating player-side multiclassing is initially somewhat shocking. But I think I agree. Rather than creating a comprehensive ruleset for multiclassing that will almost certainly have holes, it would be easy enough to release hard-coded multiclass classes. So, there would be a set of discrete, specific, rules of progression for a Fighter-MU, a Thief-Cleric etc. This assumes a DDI-type model so the classes could be created and distributed with nominal hassle. As a side note, I think many of the comments in this post regarding 3e multiclassing are not recognizing the reality of the Next rules as presented. I liked 3e multiclassing. I agree that it was essentially a point-buy system, but it made character creation interesting and gave the players something to talk about, read about and ponder on outside of actual playtime. Basically, it extended the hobby. In 1e/2e there wasn't much to do for a player who wasn't playing. In 3e/4e you can create a theoretical character, argue on discussion boards, or spend your lunch hour with your nerd colleague trying to create a good 3e archer Bard. But Next feels to me, and this is just my opinion, as very much a 2e with a small, unified ruleset rather random subrules patched in at whim. So 3e multiclassing is pretty much off the table. The system is too different. In a sense, Next is what 3e should have been, a significant change in rules with a nominal change in tone. I can imagine an alternate reality where Next was 3e and Pathfinder was its own thing. The world would be a better place. And I play, and love, 4e. [/QUOTE]

Verification