Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6016407" data-attributes="member: 1465">I am not a huge fan of multiclassing, I can definitely live without it.Generally I am ok with characters having 2 classes or (occasionally) even 3, but beyond that it feels ridiculous to me.OTOH I prefer unbalanced class combinations, e.g. &quot;fighter with a few levels of wizard&quot;, to 50-50 concepts.And furthermore I think multiclassing is most of the time an idea for later, such as that fighter above later, much later in his career, after being introduced to magic by friends and foes alike, starting to dabble a little bit in magic books, rather than having 2-in-1 characters since the start.For these reasons, I prefer 3ed style multiclassing, i.e. level-based. Not classic multiclassing because it ends up with evenly balanced classes, and not dual classing because that was so rigid to the point of being silly.What I didn't like in 3ed style multiclassing was extreme multiclassing (more than 2-3 is extreme enough for me), level-dipping done just for efficiency reasons, and the fact that it worked too well for fighter-types and horribly for casters.4ed style multiclassing is not bad, but I would not actually call it multiclassing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6016407, member: 1465"] I am not a huge fan of multiclassing, I can definitely live without it. Generally I am ok with characters having 2 classes or (occasionally) even 3, but beyond that it feels ridiculous to me. OTOH I prefer unbalanced class combinations, e.g. "fighter with a few levels of wizard", to 50-50 concepts. And furthermore I think multiclassing is most of the time an idea for later, such as that fighter above later, much later in his career, after being introduced to magic by friends and foes alike, starting to dabble a little bit in magic books, rather than having 2-in-1 characters since the start. For these reasons, I prefer 3ed style multiclassing, i.e. level-based. Not classic multiclassing because it ends up with evenly balanced classes, and not dual classing because that was so rigid to the point of being silly. What I didn't like in 3ed style multiclassing was extreme multiclassing (more than 2-3 is extreme enough for me), level-dipping done just for efficiency reasons, and the fact that it worked too well for fighter-types and horribly for casters. 4ed style multiclassing is not bad, but I would not actually call it multiclassing. [/QUOTE]

Verification