Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="UngeheuerLich" data-source="post: 4188369" data-attributes="member: 59057">giving how much they talk about how ingenious their multiclassing idea was i assume it is great.Maybe we need time to let it sink in. The most important thing is balance. As much as I would like real mixes, there is following issue:In 3.5 it made no difference if you are a fighter/wizard or wizard/fighter besides some&nbsp; hp depending on your roll and some free spells. If you mixed rogue and fighter you would be dumb to take fighter first, because you lose 18 skillpoints for ever.So you have to write the classes or the multiclass rules in a way, that equal looking options be equal in power. But maybe using feats to dip into a class is the cleaner way. And real multiclassing as alternative to a paragon path (which really seems class specific with that new info) also seems like a good solution (broader instead of more focussed)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="UngeheuerLich, post: 4188369, member: 59057"] giving how much they talk about how ingenious their multiclassing idea was i assume it is great. Maybe we need time to let it sink in. The most important thing is balance. As much as I would like real mixes, there is following issue: In 3.5 it made no difference if you are a fighter/wizard or wizard/fighter besides some hp depending on your roll and some free spells. If you mixed rogue and fighter you would be dumb to take fighter first, because you lose 18 skillpoints for ever. So you have to write the classes or the multiclass rules in a way, that equal looking options be equal in power. But maybe using feats to dip into a class is the cleaner way. And real multiclassing as alternative to a paragon path (which really seems class specific with that new info) also seems like a good solution (broader instead of more focussed) [/QUOTE]

Verification