Multiclassing: "Any combo, any level, always works."

[hong]

I think the Practiced Spellcaster feat was a very good idea, but that's about it - I have no use for the various PrCs that let you advance in two classes at once. I don't think they "fix" anything, I think they're just affirmative action for people who aren't good at playing the game, and something to abuse for those who can game the system.

"System mastery" as a design philosophy is dead, d00d.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I actually think 3E/3.5 is a pretty forgiving RPG system when it comes to making hybrid characters. Most point-buy (rather than level-based) RPGs out there make it a lot harder to make one those.

I think you're out of your freakin' mind if you actually believe that. The way spell levels alone work is enough to blow that idea clean out of the water.

3E pee'd all over 1E and 2E's multiclassing system (in a bad way), which seemed to work fine to me, and never once in any of my games meant that the single-classers were being "shown up" by the multiclassers.

 

[mmu1]

I think you're out of your freakin' mind if you actually believe that. The way spell levels alone work is enough to blow that idea clean out of the water.

3E pee'd all over 1E and 2E's multiclassing system (in a bad way), which seemed to work fine to me, and never once in any of my games meant that the single-classers were being "shown up" by the multiclassers.

Well, I think you're incompetent if you can't make the game work and need an absurdity like 2e multi-class rules to produce a viable character.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well, I think you're incompetent if you can't make the game work.

Helpful and thoughtful.

 

[hong]

Helpful and thoughtful.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

 

[mmu1]

Helpful and thoughtful.

Oh, was that what you were striving for when you said I must be out of my mind? I don't know how I could have missed that. I'm so sorry.

 

[Campbell]

I think you're out of your freakin' mind if you actually believe that. The way spell levels alone work is enough to blow that idea clean out of the water.

3E pee'd all over 1E and 2E's multiclassing system (in a bad way), which seemed to work fine to me, and never once in any of my games meant that the single-classers were being "shown up" by the multiclassers.

So you saw single-classed thieves?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So you saw single-classed thieves?

Yep, several times, not the answer you were expecting? The utter powergamers wouldn't play them, I'm sure, but they are rarely had Thief in their multiclass combo either, and they're not a good measuring stick imo. Honestly, in most of my games, there was single-classed human Thief of some description.

 

[Merlion]

Well, a fighter 10/wizard 10 should be as good as a fighter 20 or a wizard 20, but just not as good at being a fighter as the fighter 20, or as good at being a wizard as the wizard 20. He should, despite multiclassing, still be a 20th level character, but not be able to outshine specialist characters in whatever domain they're specialized.

Thats what I meant to say. I'm a little tired and its affecting my typing.

 

[airwalkrr]

I'm with the OP. This mythical goal alluded to in the thread title is likely unobtainable. Approximations may occur, some better than others, but there is no way to balance so many different variables in a game with so many more variables.