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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AeroDm" data-source="post: 5860310" data-attributes="member: 13650">I think that is part of the problem of 3e multiclassing. Included in Fighter 3 is the promise of Fighter 4 and the benefits it entails. You can think of this as the net present value of Fighter 3 is positive because of those future payouts. Perhaps no class shows this as clearly as the spell casting classes. When 3e was just being advertised it was a really jarring moment when they revealed that all classes would stack with regards to experience. Coming from 2e, the idea that Fighter 10 might jump into Wizard 1 and he should have to earn experience as an 11th level character to hit 12th was really, really weird. A lot of people just announced that they would house rule it away. The truth of how powerful that Wiz1 level is to the Ftr10 is somewhere in the middle. It isn't quite worth a full level, but it is pretty good.I think the OP's proposal would also fall somewhere in the middle. A lot of your level-boxes would be pretty powerful and stack together nicely. You'd start to encounter problems, though, at the fringes. What if someone takes 5 straight boxes without +1 attack? They have a ton of whistles and bells, but none of them ever get to make noise because they never hit. When your boxes contain inside them the core math of the system, you really put a lot of faith in players that they make good decisions. What I imagine you'll end up with is a lot of min-maxers doing really great and a bunch of new players doing really poorly. We probably don't want to hand every new player to the game just enough rope to hang themselves, so we'd have to put a lot of rules and restrictions on which boxes could be taken when and where and so on. At that point, it is starting to sound a lot like classes again.</blockquote>

Verification