Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chris_Nightwing" data-source="post: 6018411" data-attributes="member: 882">Over on another thread, 3E-style multiclassing is winning the poll, followed by a strong showing for classic multiclassing/4E hybrid classes (which are awfully similar in intent) and then 4E multiclass feats. I think this poll might indicate a division between how people see classes and levels on a more fundamental level, so I made a poll.Designing a multiclass system comes with several important questions:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Should you have to decide your class mixture in advance (classic, 4E hybrid) or not (3E)?</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">If not 1, should your first class be special? (classic dual-classing, 3E to some extent, 4E feats) or not?</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Should the divergence of your different classes be limited in some way (4E feats) or not (classic dual-classing, 3E)?</li>
</ol>I think that there's a split between people who want to be able to mix-and-match classes as much as they like, deciding as they level-up, and people who think that you should have to commit right from the start to a particular concept. In my mind, this is actually an ideological choice about how important your class is. The mix-and-match approach treats levels like currency and, if anything, would function better with less distinct classes - where abilities might overlap considerably between classes and the tree-climbing required to get the best class abilities would be reduced (9th-level spells, I'm looking at you). The committed approach likes distinctive classes right from the start, and wants some abilities to be unachievable unless the class is fully committed to. This works better if every class has its best abilities at the top of tall trees, and with almost no overlap between classes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chris_Nightwing, post: 6018411, member: 882"] Over on another thread, 3E-style multiclassing is winning the poll, followed by a strong showing for classic multiclassing/4E hybrid classes (which are awfully similar in intent) and then 4E multiclass feats. I think this poll might indicate a division between how people see classes and levels on a more fundamental level, so I made a poll. Designing a multiclass system comes with several important questions: [LIST=1] [*]Should you have to decide your class mixture in advance (classic, 4E hybrid) or not (3E)? [*]If not 1, should your first class be special? (classic dual-classing, 3E to some extent, 4E feats) or not? [*]Should the divergence of your different classes be limited in some way (4E feats) or not (classic dual-classing, 3E)? [/LIST] I [i]think[/i] that there's a split between people who want to be able to mix-and-match classes as much as they like, deciding as they level-up, and people who think that you should have to commit right from the start to a particular concept. In my mind, this is actually an ideological choice about how important your class is. The mix-and-match approach treats levels like currency and, if anything, would function better with less distinct classes - where abilities might overlap considerably between classes and the tree-climbing required to get the best class abilities would be reduced (9th-level spells, I'm looking at you). The committed approach likes distinctive classes right from the start, and wants some abilities to be unachievable unless the class is fully committed to. This works better if every class has its best abilities at the top of tall trees, and with almost no overlap between classes. [/QUOTE]

Verification