Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mlund" data-source="post: 6016343" data-attributes="member: 50304">Multi-classing in D&amp;D has always been a train-wreck of an affair. Half the people are trying to create a concept that they can't get due to poor customization options in character creation. The other half are twinks trying to power-game. 3E multi-classing certainly made the jobs of both these core constituencies easier, much to the detriment of everyone else.Front-loaded classes + 3.X multi-classing is a hot mess. The only thing that balanced it in 3E at all was that dedicated casters were so unbalanced and quadratic that stepping out of them for other classes that drained your Caster Level and Spell Progression was sub-optimal. Meanwhile, no amount of level-dipping for feats and saving throw bonuses would ever put a non-caster on par with a proper caster so it was largely a moot point.With properly balanced classes front-end loaded multi-classing 3E style is a train-wreck. AD&amp;D multi-classing creates rough power deficits that can't be justified without racial level caps. The alternatives 4E gave us are complicated, though. 4E Feat-based multi-classing is way too dependent on AEDU parallels. Hybrids forced a hard 50/50 split and didn't always support all the supplements or classes properly - plus it's more trouble than they are worth without the Insider character builder.Appendix-based multi-classing is probably the best way to go that's ever been proposed in D&amp;D. It looks like a lot of work for the design team, though. I'm still curious as to how they'll quantify character-level vs. level of entry vs. number of multi-class levels. It is a lot of variables to balance out.- Marty Lund</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mlund, post: 6016343, member: 50304"] Multi-classing in D&D has always been a train-wreck of an affair. Half the people are trying to create a concept that they can't get due to poor customization options in character creation. The other half are twinks trying to power-game. 3E multi-classing certainly made the jobs of both these core constituencies easier, much to the detriment of everyone else. Front-loaded classes + 3.X multi-classing is a hot mess. The only thing that balanced it in 3E at all was that dedicated casters were so unbalanced and quadratic that stepping out of them for other classes that drained your Caster Level and Spell Progression was sub-optimal. Meanwhile, no amount of level-dipping for feats and saving throw bonuses would ever put a non-caster on par with a proper caster so it was largely a moot point. With properly balanced classes front-end loaded multi-classing 3E style is a train-wreck. AD&D multi-classing creates rough power deficits that can't be justified without racial level caps. The alternatives 4E gave us are complicated, though. 4E Feat-based multi-classing is way too dependent on AEDU parallels. Hybrids forced a hard 50/50 split and didn't always support all the supplements or classes properly - plus it's more trouble than they are worth without the Insider character builder. Appendix-based multi-classing is probably the best way to go that's ever been proposed in D&D. It looks like a lot of work for the design team, though. I'm still curious as to how they'll quantify character-level vs. level of entry vs. number of multi-class levels. It is a lot of variables to balance out. - Marty Lund [/QUOTE]

Verification