Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GX.Sigma" data-source="post: 5867439" data-attributes="member: 6690511">I think it's more to do with &quot;multisysteming&quot; than multiclassing. Each class could include some generic systems as well as unique material. What I mean is:If someone wants to be a ranger, you can't just say &quot;okay, take 3 levels of Nature Guy, 5 levels of Combat Guy, and 1 level of Sneaky Guy.&quot; Rather, you should have ranger as a separate class, and say &quot;the ranger can do combat stuff, some nature stuff, and sometimes a little bit of sneaky stuff, and all this unique Ranger stuff,&quot; and then go on to describe what the Ranger stuff is.So a Paladin isn't just a Fighter/Cleric; he's a separate class that can do combat stuff, some divine stuff, and has some unique Paladin stuff.Moreover, the Fighter's class features shouldn't be just the basic combat stuff. He should be a unique class that can do combat stuff, and has some unique Fighter stuff.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GX.Sigma, post: 5867439, member: 6690511"] I think it's more to do with "multisysteming" than multiclassing. Each class could include some generic systems as well as unique material. What I mean is: If someone wants to be a ranger, you can't just say "okay, take 3 levels of Nature Guy, 5 levels of Combat Guy, and 1 level of Sneaky Guy." Rather, you should have ranger as a separate class, and say "the ranger can do combat stuff, some nature stuff, and sometimes a little bit of sneaky stuff, and all this unique Ranger stuff," and then go on to describe what the Ranger stuff is. So a Paladin isn't just a Fighter/Cleric; he's a separate class that can do combat stuff, some divine stuff, and has some unique Paladin stuff. Moreover, the Fighter's class features shouldn't be just the basic combat stuff. He should be a unique class that can do combat stuff, and has some unique Fighter stuff. [/QUOTE]

Verification