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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 4733686" data-attributes="member: 704">If they want to revise / extend the multi-classing rules for 4th edition, that may be a good thing.  However, I think they should not have used the descriptor 'Dual Classing'.  My only familiarity with any version of that system in was in 2nd edition, and quite frankly, it was pretty stupid.The complaints about 4th Edition Multiclassing are that it is not really possible to create a character that can access abilities from more than one class at a time in a satisfying fashion.  I suspect that the only solution that would be accepted (barring a brilliant idea unconnected to anything currently existing) is to give a legal means for characters of one class to gain abilities of another class at any given level instead of being limited to selections from the primary class, and the option to do this right from the start (so that someone can create a Rogue / Warlock with Eldritch Blast and Sly Flourish as at wills).3rd Edition had a very intuitive system for multi-classing, though one that was prone to mechanical abuse via exploiting rounding errors, obtaining a 1 or 2 level dip into a front loaded class.  It was also flawed in that it made it impractical to be a evenly split multi-classed primary caster.  But it did let you pick up essentially whatever the hell you wanted.Attempting to expand the current muti-classing system for 4th edition is probably worth trying.  Replacing it outright will draw a great deal of nerdrage from the message boards due to publishing a badly broken subsystem that needed replacing in the first place;  having said that, if the new system really does work, it is something that will be forgiven.  Trying to add a whole new subsystem to exist alongside the first is really the worst of both worlds.END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

Verification