Multiclassing: What I'm hoping for

[Gryph]

-snip-


XP-cost changes for just about anything in the game bother me, because I don't like to run games with XP. I award levels based on plot points/quest completion, so if there's a way to become more powerful with an XP cost, it really breaks my games.

This is likely to be a non-starter for the designers as well. They seem as adverse as you to messing with XP costs (at least for class progression). If something like the C&C class and a half were included it would have to be firmly in the optional module space. Its clearly outside any likely base assumptions of the game.

If you don't mind my asking, did you use the same leveling style playing 3.X (assuming you played 3.X)? If so how did you handle the meta-spell and item creation rules?

 

[Steely_Dan]

I think the way I would do it would be to have characters declare one class, and allow them to choose a number of cross-class powers.

But I'm not playing Marvel Super Heroes (TSR), sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[jsaving]

But there should be none of this stuff from 3e where you could be a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Druid. Just two classes.

Completely disagree. One of the things I dislike most about 4e is the degree to which it "protect players from themselves" by shoehorning them into a couple of designer-approved roles and telling players it wouldn't be appropriate to allow further customization.

And just so we don't start an edition war here, one of the things I dislike most about 3e is the sharply limited customization options available for melee characters. Every character should have multiple "fun" options every round and not be shoehorned into simply swinging their swords each round.

Give players maximal flexibility and then stand back and let role-playing take the campaign where it may -- those are my two cents, anyway.