Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DreamChaser" data-source="post: 4197808" data-attributes="member: 1190">Not a negative...more an affirmative plus a "duh"As the multiclassing article stated (and I agree with this point) true "dual classing" where you progress evenly in two classes is essentially impossible to balance in a robust class-based system (just as a "point accounting" system for class abilities / powers is inherently problematic). Why? Because there are too many variables inherent in what during any given game is a closed system. Within the 4-5 character party, each character ought to have the same short- and long-term efficacy. This means taking (powers of class A / 2) + (powers of class B / 2) doesn't work; the character will lack the powers needed to excel or sustain as either.I imagine that they developed rules that got close by breaking down classes into "critical" "primary" and "supplemental" abiltiies and assessing the affects of combining each of the classes (as in 3e, palading / fighter gave up nothing; monk / wizard lost out big), what the trade off would need to be, how to scale this up into paragon levels, etc.At which point it probably occurred to them that they would use less space (and confuse fewer people) by adding in a "Gish" class, a Drizzt class, etc.I'm happy with dabbling for mc and the options at the paragon levels look promising as well.DC</blockquote>