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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DM_Blake" data-source="post: 4198388" data-attributes="member: 57267">Then please explain the subtlety, because I don't get it.If you're going to propose alternate rules, or house rules, why not propose rules that create viable results?No, I get it, you're not deliberately trying to make comboclassing a non-viable option.But on the other hand, by not trying to make it viable, by making a half-hearted, weak attempt at suggesting these rules, by allowing the resultant rules to make non-viable comboclasses because you didn't try to prevent that, well, the end result is the same thing: your rules allow for non-viable comboclasses.Which, judging from the posts you yourself made, is perfectly OK with you because you weren't trying to avoid that outcome.I don't believe your point of arguing that imbalanced classes and a lack of forsight in class design is a valid point for justifying an imbalanced multiclassing system.Me, I would prefer a good, balanced class system (4e might be fairly close to this, closer than an previous D&D edition anyway) with a good, balanced, viable multiclassing system (4e doesn't seem to have this yet, since multiclassing requires characters to burn feats for no appreciable gain, compared to single-classing characters who can select feats that improve their characters).Your proposed solution, from the original post, might indeed be a better step in this direction, but not if it is player implemented as a house rule, and not if it is just a paragraph or two in the PHB that tells players they can do this.It would need stronger guidelines, with balancing decisions made by the rules system (not by individual DMs or players) to prevent characters from cherry-picking the best stuff and discarding the weakest stuff and thereby generating an overpowered comboclass.</blockquote>

Verification