Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MacMathan" data-source="post: 1770982" data-attributes="member: 191">Just a sidenote: Why is it that whenever I see a thread like this one one of the complaints I hear is about spellcasters multi-classing and loosing spell-level effectiveness?Is it just a holdover form the previous editions when a multiclassed character was quite a bit more powerful for a given amount of XP?Or do we really want a Fighter/Wizard to be as good as two single classed characters from a power stand point?I realize there is a high demand for it post 3e release and therefore it was shoe-horned into 3.5 via prestige classes of questionable play balance and showed up in UA also but should there be more bang for your 20 levels as a multi class than single classed character?I think it is something that has a valid balance stand point for not existing and the system for 4e should not be tweaked to allow such.Sorry for the mini-rant. Anyhow back to the topic at hand;One thing I would like to see in 4e is the continuing clarification of terminology. This occurred to me when I was teaching my wife to play, the current rules use the word "Level" to mean many things. I.E. Your character level is your spellcaster level but not the level of spells you can choose from etc. Perhaps the 9 spell levels should be called circles or some such for clarification.Another thing fro 4e that I think UA did an okay job on is Undead Turning. The current system is a bit archaic in flow and does not scale well through a clerics lifetime.I definitely think that more skill points should be given out to characters for each level. It goes a long way to indvdulization.The Sorcerer definitely need some help to make him unique from the Wizard. I agree that a separate spell list would help in 4e.</blockquote>

Verification