Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Spatula" data-source="post: 4280559" data-attributes="member: 2198">3e-style multiclassing doesn't make sense in the 4e view of classes, because 4e class levels are not discrete chunks of bonuses as they are in 3e.Real multiclassing in 4e is: you make a brand new class that combines elements of two or more classes - like the upcoming swordmage (a fighter/wizard defender class).&nbsp; The entire paradigm, as much as I hate to use that word, has changed; you might as well complain that you can't do 1e/2e style multiclassing in 3e.&nbsp; You'd be right, but the point is irrelevant because 3e built its classes in a different fashion from 1e/2e.&nbsp; And so has 4e.&nbsp; Obviously that's a bit of disappointment right now since creating a new class is a lot of work and we don't have that many options with just the PHB 1.&nbsp; But those options will exist in the future, and they will sell a lot of books for WotC. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Regarding 3e multiclassing, it had many problems.&nbsp; I don't really consider the XP thing to be one of them - did anyone actually ever use that?&nbsp; I just treated it as &quot;don't build a character that would invoke the XP penalty&quot; making it more of an outright restriction, one that I had no problems with.&nbsp; The biggest issue is that classes that depend on levels in that one class for their power cannot be multiclassed effectively without outside help.&nbsp; Spellcasters are the big ones there (you need levels in that particular spellcasting class to make your spells effective), but it also applies to monks (unarmed damage), warlocks (eldritch blast damage), and probably some later splat classes as well.&nbsp; The only classes that stacked together well in 3e were those that depended solely on magic weapons and BAB for hurting monsters.&nbsp; 3.5 tacked on some bandaids to make certain other combos kinda work, and left the rest in the dustbin.In a lot of ways, 3e multiclassing is about giving people without system mastery the freedom to suck.&nbsp; 4e is less flexible - you need one class per concept instead of a handful of flexible base classes that you mix &amp; match - but it also does a better job of not letting players shoot themselves in the foot.&nbsp; If you play solely with gaming geeks, that probably doesn't mean much to you.&nbsp; If you have casual players in your group, it means a lot.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Spatula, post: 4280559, member: 2198"] 3e-style multiclassing doesn't make sense in the 4e view of classes, because 4e class levels are not discrete chunks of bonuses as they are in 3e. Real multiclassing in 4e is: you make a brand new class that combines elements of two or more classes - like the upcoming swordmage (a fighter/wizard defender class). The entire paradigm, as much as I hate to use that word, has changed; you might as well complain that you can't do 1e/2e style multiclassing in 3e. You'd be right, but the point is irrelevant because 3e built its classes in a different fashion from 1e/2e. And so has 4e. Obviously that's a bit of disappointment right now since creating a new class is a lot of work and we don't have that many options with just the PHB 1. But those options will exist in the future, and they will sell a lot of books for WotC. ;) Regarding 3e multiclassing, it had many problems. I don't really consider the XP thing to be one of them - did anyone actually ever use that? I just treated it as "don't build a character that would invoke the XP penalty" making it more of an outright restriction, one that I had no problems with. The biggest issue is that classes that depend on levels [i]in that one class[/i] for their power cannot be multiclassed effectively without outside help. Spellcasters are the big ones there (you need levels in that particular spellcasting class to make your spells effective), but it also applies to monks (unarmed damage), warlocks (eldritch blast damage), and probably some later splat classes as well. The only classes that stacked together well in 3e were those that depended solely on magic weapons and BAB for hurting monsters. 3.5 tacked on some bandaids to make certain other combos kinda work, and left the rest in the dustbin. In a lot of ways, 3e multiclassing is about giving people without system mastery the freedom to suck. 4e is less flexible - you need one class per concept instead of a handful of flexible base classes that you mix & match - but it also does a better job of not letting players shoot themselves in the foot. If you play solely with gaming geeks, that probably doesn't mean much to you. If you have casual players in your group, it means a lot. [/QUOTE]

Verification