Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Vyvyan Basterd" data-source="post: 5797003" data-attributes="member: 4892">&quot;Easy multiclassing into other classes&quot; is what has me worried. Monte mentions rewarding &quot;good play.&quot; I think this is a great goal - in game. I do not like the idea of rewarding the guy with the most books or the guy who is able to cobble together a nonsensical build by easily multiclassing into multiple classes to cherry pick front-loaded abilities. What this led to in 3E, for my group's playstyle, was some players who has the system mastery that allowed them to create multiclass Frankenstein monsters that were more powerful that the sum of their parts, while others tried to make something that seemed cool and flavorful to them but fell into a multiclassing trap that made their characters worse than the sum of their parts. The disparity in power level between the most powerful and least powerful characters in each campaign during the last two years of official 3.5 support made it extremely difficult for me to DM. And when I asked the rest of the group to run a campaign instead (two of whom DM regularly), none wanted to tackle the problem. I was ready to quit D&amp;D entirely about one month before 4th edition was announced. That's why the design team deciding to shoot for &quot;3E style&quot; multiclassing instead of giving options for different styles makes me wonder if D&amp;DN will be right for my group. It is the only major concern I've had so far, I either like the rest of what I've heard or can live with or ignore the rest. But my group neither would want to live with or ignore multiclassing.We asked that same question in last night's game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Vyvyan Basterd, post: 5797003, member: 4892"] "Easy multiclassing into other classes" is what has me worried. Monte mentions rewarding "good play." I think this is a great goal - [I]in game[/I]. I do not like the idea of rewarding the guy with the most books or the guy who is able to cobble together a nonsensical build by easily multiclassing into multiple classes to cherry pick front-loaded abilities. What this led to in 3E, [I]for my group's playstyle[/I], was some players who has the system mastery that allowed them to create multiclass Frankenstein monsters that were more powerful that the sum of their parts, while others tried to make something that seemed cool and flavorful to them but fell into a multiclassing trap that made their characters worse than the sum of their parts. The disparity in power level between the most powerful and least powerful characters in each campaign during the last two years of official 3.5 support made it extremely difficult for me to DM. And when I asked the rest of the group to run a campaign instead (two of whom DM regularly), none wanted to tackle the problem. I was ready to quit D&D entirely about one month [I]before[/I] 4th edition was announced. That's why the design team deciding to shoot for "3E style" multiclassing instead of giving options for different styles makes me wonder if D&DN will be right for my group. It is the only major concern I've had so far, I either like the rest of what I've heard or can live with or ignore the rest. But my group neither would want to live with or ignore multiclassing. We asked that same question in last night's game. [/QUOTE]

Verification