Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6016282" data-attributes="member: 17106">In principle, I'm more a fan of the 3e approach.The math can really get screwy; I think it's clear that a fighter 1/barbarian 1 should not have a better fort save than a fighter 2, and the same issues get deeper when you start talking about class abilities. That being said, it's eminently fixable, especially with flatter math.There are also a lot of class balance issues that popped up due to dipping. Classes really need to be balanced such that taking 1 level is helpful, but not abusive, and that all classes have reasons to look forward to leveling.One of the big advances in 3e was being able to just &quot;take a level&quot; of something. I'd never want to go back.***The whole prestige class thing was really an interesting permutation. It started our small but sure got big. In a way, I'd really like to have seen (sort of like d20 Modern), the base classes get reduced to 10 levels, and having everyone multiclass, either to another base class or an &quot;advanced class&quot;. Instead of playing a straight wizard 20, you'd play a wizard 10/archmage 10 (or necromancer 10 or loremaster 10 or wizard 5/rogue 5/arcane trickster 10 whatever). After all, the proliferation of prestige classes and the poor design of the base classes made this common practice anyway (though PF did a nice job of taking a hard look at 20-level viability of the base classes). Probably too much of a sacred cow to kill though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6016282, member: 17106"] In principle, I'm more a fan of the 3e approach. The math can really get screwy; I think it's clear that a fighter 1/barbarian 1 should not have a better fort save than a fighter 2, and the same issues get deeper when you start talking about class abilities. That being said, it's eminently fixable, especially with flatter math. There are also a lot of class balance issues that popped up due to dipping. Classes really need to be balanced such that taking 1 level is helpful, but not abusive, and that all classes have reasons to look forward to leveling. One of the big advances in 3e was being able to just "take a level" of something. I'd never want to go back. *** The whole prestige class thing was really an interesting permutation. It started our small but sure got big. In a way, I'd really like to have seen (sort of like d20 Modern), the base classes get reduced to 10 levels, and having everyone multiclass, either to another base class or an "advanced class". Instead of playing a straight wizard 20, you'd play a wizard 10/archmage 10 (or necromancer 10 or loremaster 10 or wizard 5/rogue 5/arcane trickster 10 whatever). After all, the proliferation of prestige classes and the poor design of the base classes made this common practice anyway (though PF did a nice job of taking a hard look at 20-level viability of the base classes). Probably too much of a sacred cow to kill though. [/QUOTE]

Verification