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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6169451" data-attributes="member: 1210">Z, you make some good points! I'm just going to cull out a few things to reply to; I think in the end we simply have different preferences for multiclassing, and I doubt whether either of us is going to convert. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Here's hoping 5e supports both of our styles!Interesting. My experience- dating back to BECMI/1e days- is exactly the opposite; probably around 1/3 of all the pcs I've seen over the years have been multiclassed (less in 4e, more in 3e, but overall). But of course, I played in and dmed games that kind of cultivated the sort of "excessive multiclassing" that you don't care for, so it makes sense that there would be more of that kind of thing in my experience.However, I will say that I disagree that 3e's system was inherently bad. With improved implementation, it could work great. For instance, if all classes gain attack bonus at the same rate and some (e.g. fighters, paladins, barbarians, etc) get additional attack bonuses as class features at certain levels, then the attack bonus problem more or less solves itself. The proficiencies issue is pretty easy to address just by adding a line differentiating between "Starting in this class" and "multiclassing into this class". And so on.I'm with you on having multiclassing be optional. However, I don't like being forced to include feats to use multiclassing options. A 1e-style game might have multiclassing with no feats, for instance. Sure, but I'd rather avoid race and class bloat. I'm all for a book of spells, a book of feats, even a whole book of backgrounds. I'm all for monster book after monster book, a 5e Frostfell and Sandstorm and Stormwrack, books on the planes, setting books, etc. Extra base classes and races, though? My least favorite stuff. But as you say, it's a matter of taste. I disagree with you here, except in that it's bad to impose unneeded design constraints. I don't think that it's bad to build custom classes for D&D; in fact, that's been going on since 1e and earlier. While a fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1 is "not D&D" to you, it certainly is to the guy whose favorite character is that  fighter 2/ranger 2/rogue 3/monk 2/bard 1. And what if he's not built that way as a power build (frankly, it doesn't look like one to me), but rather just through the natural evolution of his character (fighter first; wilderness time to gain ranger; urban adventures teach rogue; retreat to the wilderness and learn monk skills; then travel and tell your tales, bard)? I like 3e multiclassing precisely because it allows finer tuning that previous versions of the game's class systems have.Except that 3e style multiclassing is, or at least seems to be, hugely popular.Firstly, I think it's silly to ignore powergamers when designing a given major subsystem of the game, just as it would be silly to ignore the heavy-roleplay crowd when designing that same subsystem (though, probably, certain of the game's systems- combat, interaction, etc- have to veer one way or the other). Why arbitrarily exclude them from the fun here? Multiclassing is a big enough part of a ton of campaigns; it should serve everyone.As far as new ways of doing multiclassing, while I'm open to the idea- I like the idea of "dip" feats, for instance- if we're going to use a new system for it, it should be an improvement over the 3e system. We tried multiclassing via feats in 4e; frankly, while it's not quite underpowered, it more or less sucks. Something new, different and better? Sure. I just haven't been sold on anything else yet. I think 3e had D&D's best multiclassing, though, so I'm obviously prejudiced. Fair enough, I guess I did get carried away there, didn't I!I think the solution is better implementation. The main problems with 3e multiclassing can all be fixed pretty easily IMHO. They just need a little attention and- dare I say it?- playtesting! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification